rT-^. 



-i -f 



c^:^^.^'' 



OO^ 



^v^ >' 






oX 



.^^^ 



X^^ 






Oo, 







^ ' ' ^ V ^^1^ 


'^^ > 


;^vv,\ .. :M 






- ^ 



^v^'.^ 



.<^^ 



.^' 



'''\ 



:t^:/' 






<!'■■' ^ 



. N 0- ^ -7^ ' 










vV s ^ ^^ ■ /, 









& 



></ 






















'^ o . X^ ^^. 



*"-"v<-.;v*"''^i/.,.„X'. 



.'sa^ 



^. 



'.w. 



* ^^ 



V 1 fi 









^" .<?-^ 



S^-^ 



..SS^^' 



.^^^^^'^^^^ ^W-^' 



'^. . .-y 






i' V "^^ ft „ 



V V 



s^"' ^x. > 



'^r- ,^^^' 










A^^ 



^^. 









\0 o^ 



-.^^ 



^ 0^f^/.-.. 



.O'^ 



j,V - ' ■^'' ''s^^ 



-a\ 






Oo 



. .. Z ^' 







A V c '^ ^ ' « 


















^^ ^ 






,% 



v^^ '^'t. 






\<^'^' 






■^ : A. 















oo' 






^'^^, 






1^ .V_.:C^Vl 






v^ 



^^' 









.S^ -^-s-. 



x°^ 



.V. ■"°o'< 



^1 



'^^ v^' 



.^•-^ 



,N* 



f^ -n. 






':f- ^ 



*»,.•• 



-Fa - % 



,, ^ AV 



U 



'^' 







■^^ "^^ -"A 









^^• 



•b. 



cP- 



ELEMEITS OF THEOLO&Y, 



OE 



AN EXPOSITION OF THE 



DIVINE ORIGIN, DOCTRINES, MOMLS AND INSTITUTK, 



OP 



CHEISTIANITY 



BY EEY. LUTHER LEE, 

PRESIDENT OF L E N I T H E O L O G I C A L INSTITUTE 



" Beware, leet any man spoil you through phUosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after 
the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the God-head 
bodily." — Paul. 



3f tt»-I!ork: 
MILLEK, ORTON & MULLIGAN 

^" ^ : SYRACUSE, N. Y— SA^EL LEE. 




^■^^^U^^t^*' 



^v^y/^^^^ .^^^yf^ 



■//^ 






>" 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by 
LUTHER AND SAMUEL LEE, 

In tlie Clerk's Ofl&ce of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. 



Samuel Lee. Printer, Tctrnet & Brother, 

Syracuse, N. Y. Stereotypers New York 



PREFACE. 



This volume is believed by the Author, to contain a brief, yet entire view of Chris- 
tianity, as a system of Eevealed Religion. The outline comprehends the evidence of 
its divine origin, the doctrinal truths it reveals, the duties it commands, and the insti- 
tutions it establishes. 

It has been one leading object to adapt the work to common readers, and it is be- 
lieved that it will be found to be suited to interest, instruct and profit Christians gen- 
erally. At the same time, however, the Author has had his eye upon the wants of our 
young men, who need a course of reading to prepare them for the Ministry, and he 
believes their wants are largely met, so far as theology is concerned. Of the necessity 
of such a work to put into the hands of those who are preparing for the Ministry, and 
who have just entered the Ministry, the Author's own experience is, to him, sufficient 
proof. He honestly believes that such a volume placed in his hands when he entered 
the Ministry, would have saved him years of mental labor and solicitude, by which he 
has gathered and collated the contents of this volume. 

It is true there are volumes of Theology, but the Author has never seen any which 
he has found, as a whole, adapted to his own wants. They are constructed upon a 
different system of doctrinal truth, or they are largely occupied with an examination 
and refutation of old and long since exploded errors, while the real living questions of 
our time and country appear to have been unknown to the writers. Theology, repre- 
senting, not the true science of God, but only the conceptions of the human mind in re- 
gard to God, like everything else is undergoing perpetual changes, so that the most 
interesting questions now under discussion, are, in many particulars, different from 
what they were half a century ago, or even twenty-five years ago. The advantage 
claimed for the present work, is, that it meets the questions now before the public mind, 
that it deals with the living world. 



IV. PREFACE. 

The Author does not wish to disguise the fact that he is neither a high Calvinist, 
nor a Pelagian, nor even what some may call a low Armenian, but he advocates what 
he believes to be a true medium ground, where true Gospel salvation is found at the 
point of union between divine and human agency. But to understand his views, his 
work must be read. That all will be satisfied with the views advocated, is not to be 
expected, yet it must be admitted that the work contains much important truth, com- 
mon to all evangelical Christians, and though some readers may feel compelled to 
reject some portions, the same persons may be instructed and profited by the study of 
other parts. 

It has cost the Author much labor, but his work is done, and he submits it to the 
public with a consciousness of an honest intention, and with his prayers that it may be 
a blessing to the world. Amen. 
April, 1856. 



CONTENTS. 



BOOK I. 

PAGE 

The Existence and Attributes of God, and the Inspiration of the 

Scriptures, 1 

CHAPTER I. 

The Existence and Attributes of God demonstrated, a posteriori, 1 

Section i. — The Existence of God 1 

" II.— The Attributes of God, _ 5 

CHAPTER II. 

The Inspiration of the Scriptures, 6 

Section i. — A Revelation from God is Possible, 6 

" II. — A Revelation from God is necessary, , 8 

" III. — The Genuineness of the Old Testament, 13 

" IV. — The Genuineness of the New Testament, 19 

" V. — The Scriptures claim to be Inspired, 23 

" Yi. — The Credibility of the writers, 25 

" VII. — The Evidence of Miracles, 29 

" VIII. — Objections to the evidence of Miracles answered, 40 

" IX. — The argument founded upon Prophecy, 47 

" X. — The Adaptation of the Scriptures to the wants of mankind, 57 

" XI. — The Success of the Scriptures, 69 

" XII. — The Influence of the Scriptures, 61 

BOOK II. 

The Doctrines op the Scriptures, QQ 

CHAPTER I. 

The Existence of God viewed in the light of the Scriptures, 66 

CHAPTER II. 

The Character and Attributes of God, 68 



VI. CONTENTS. 

Section i. — The Spirituality of God, 68 

" II.— The Eternity of God, 69 

" III. — The Omnipotence of God, 69 

" IV. — The Omnipresence of God 70 

" V. — The Omniscience of God, 70 

" VI.— The Immutability of God, 71 

" VII. — The Justice of God, 73 

" VIII. — The Goodness, Love, Benevolence, and Mercy of God,. 73 

" IX.— The Holiness of God, 76 

CHAPTER III. 

The Trinity in the Unity of the Godhead, 78 

Section i. — Preliminary Remarks, 78 

II.— The Unity of God, 79 

III. — The Underived Divinity of Christ, 80 

IV. — The Hypostatic Union, 93 

V. — The Divinity and Personality of the Holy Ghost, 97 

VI.— The Trinity in Unity, 103 

CHAPTER lY. 

The Original State of Man, 106 

Section i. — Man was Created Holy, 106 

" II. — Man was not Liable to Death in his Pristine State, 108 

*• III. — Objections to Man's Exemption from Death answered 110 

CHAPTER Y. 

The Fall of man — Depravity, 110 

Section i.— The Fall of Adam, Ill 

" II.— Objections to a literal construction of the account of the fall answered, 113 
" III. — All men are depraved in consequence of the fall, 115 

CHAPTER YI. 

Redemption — Christ's death a ransom for Sinners — The Atonement, 124 

Section i. — The necessity of Atonement, 121 

" II. — The Atonement proved from the Mosaic Ritual, 128 

" III.— The Death of Christ, 131 

" IV. — The Scriptures represent Christ as a Redeemer a.nd man as redeemed, 133 
" V. — The Scriptures Represent Christ as a Mediator, Intercessor and 

Reconciler, 134 

VI. — The Scriptures attribute the removal of sin and the salvation of 

sinners to the blood, death, and resurrection of, Christ, 136 

*' VII. — The Scriptures assert directly the sacrifical and propitiatory char- 
acter of Christ's death, .' 138 

" VIII. — Objections to the doctrine of the Atonement answered, 141 

CHAPTER YII. 

The extent of the atonement, , 145 

Section i. — The atonement was made for universal humanity, 145 

" II. — The atonement is not limited in its application by any supposed de- 
cree of predestination or forcordination, 148 

" III. — The atonement is not limited in its appHcation by any supposed de- 
cree of election and reprobation, 154 

" IV. — The Atonement is not limited in its application by any supposed 

influence of God's foreknowledo-e, 160 



CONTENTS. VII. 

Section v. — The atonement is not limited in its application by any supposed want 
of power on the part of sinners to comply with the conditions upon 

which its benefits are offered, 174 

" VI. — The atonement is not limited in its application by any supposed 

governing influence of motives, 181 

CHAPTER YIII. 

Salvation by grace explained and defended, . . , 189 

Section i. — Justification by faith — Pardon Remission of sin, 189 

" II. — Regeneration — The JS'ew Birth, 193 

" III.— Adoption, 200 

" IV. — The evidence by which persons may know their acceptance with 

God — the witness of the Spirit, 201 

" V. — Sanctification, 207 

" VI. — The case of infants and heathen considered, 219 

CHART ER IX. 

The world of spirits — the future state, 222 

Section i. — The existence and employment of angels, 222 

" II. — The existence and evil influence of devils, 228 

" III. -The Immortality of the Soul, 242 

" IV. —The intermediate state, 278 

" v.— The Resurrection, 290 

'* Ti. — The Judgment of the last day, 300 

" VII. — The future state of the righteous, 306 

" VIII. — The future destiny of the wicked, 311 

" IX. — The final destiny of the wicked — they will not be annihilated, 326 

BOOK III. 

Christianity considered as a system of Moral Government, 332 

CHAPTER I. 

The fundamental principles of God's moral government, 332 

Section i. — The Scriptures teach that God is a universal supreme moral governor, 332 

" II. — The Scriptures teach that man is a subject of God's moral govern- 
ment, 335 

" III. — The Scriptures contain God's moral code, 339 

CHAPTER II. 

The duties we owe to God, 344 

Section i. — Love to God, -„ 344 

" II. — Reverence and fear of God, 348 

" III. — The duty of prayer, 352 

" IV. — The duty of maintaining public worship, 363 

" v.— The Christian Sabbath, 366 

CHAPTER III. 

The duties we owe to our fellow beings, 379 

Section i. — The duty of universal love to humanity, 379 

" II. — Husbands and wives, 384 

" III. — Parents and children, 391 

" IV. — Masters and servants, 395 



VIII. CONTENTS. 

I CHAPTEEIV. 

The duties we owe to our fellow beings continued — Civil government, 398 

Section i. — The rightful existence of civil government 398 

" II. — The rights and duties of civil government 411 

" III. — Objections to civil government answered 414 

" IV. — The duties of the people in regard to civil government 428 

CHAPTER Y. 

The duties we owe to out fellow creatures, concluded — The duty of man to man, 

as man 431 

Section i. — Man has an inalienable right to life , 431 

" II. — The right of property 434 

" III. — Man's right to liberty 436 

" IV. — The Old Testament does not teach that chattel slavery can be right . 447 
" V. — The Scriptures of the New Testament do not teach that slavery can 

be right 460 

BOOK IV. 

The Christian Church and its Institutions, 480 

C H APTEE I. 

Section i. — Yisible church organization explained and defended 480 

" II. — Church government — the rights of the Laity 492 

*' III. — Written articles of faith and practice 505 

CHAPTER II. 

The ministry 513 

Section i. — The Gospel ministry was established by Christ as a permanent in- 
stitution 513 

" II. — The mode of ministerial appointment 516 

" III. — Ministerial parity 521 

" IV. — Ministerial parity — Further direct argument — Dr. Bangs reviewed . 530 

" V. — The assumption of apostolic succession exposed 533 

CHAPTER III. 

The Sacraments 543 

Section i.^ — Baptism — its nature and design 544 

*' II. — The subjects of baptism 549 

" III. — The mode of baptism 564 

" IV. — The Lord's Supper 572 



ELEMENTS OF THEOLOGY. 



BOOK I 



THE EXISTENCE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD, AND THE INSPIRA- 
TION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE EXISTENCE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 
DEMONSTRATED A POSTERIORI. 



SECTION I. 

The Existence of God. 

1. The idea of the existence of God, 
forms in the human mind, the foundation of 
all religion, natural or revealed. It is not 
possible to conceive of religion, without first 
conceiving of a superior power. Ignorant 
heathen, it is admitted, often worship that 
which is inferior to themselves, as when 
they bow before images made of wood and 
stone ; but these are but images, representa- 
tions of something else, and with them is 
always associated something else, something 
beyond, some mysterious pervading spirit, 
some higher power. If a race of men can 
be found, who have no conception of a 
power higher than themselves, it will be 



found that they will have no religion ; that 
is, they will worship nothing. Some di- 
vines proceed, first to prove the truth of the 
Scriptures, and then from the Scriptures pro- 
ceed to demonstrate the existence and attri- 
butes of God. The attributes and character 
of God are proper subjects to be discussed 
in the light of the Scriptures ; but the ab- 
stract existence of God need never be proved 
from the Bible. To attempt to prove that 
the Scriptures are given by inspiration of 
God, is to assume that God exists, and to 
prove the inspiration of the Scriptures, is 
to prove the existence of God ; there need, 
therefore, be no argument founded upon the 
Scriptures to prove the existence of God ; 
for, if the Scriptures are inspired, God ex- 
ists, and if they are not inspired, they cannot 
prove the existence of God. All abstract 
arguments in support of the existence of 
God, are most in place before entering upon 
an investigation of the claims of the Scrip- 
tures to inspiration, inasmuch as when the 
inspiration of the Scriptures is clearly 
established, the existence of God cannot be 



THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 



[book I. 



called in question. Those only will call in 
question the existence of God, who deny the 
Scriptures ; hence, arguments to prove the 
existence of God, are necessary only for 
those who cannot be reached by any Scrip- 
tural demonstration. It is therefore proper, 
to meet such upon their own ground of 
reason, and demonstrate, a posteriori, that 
there is a Creator, from the fact of a visible 
and tangible creation. 

2. As nothing cannot produce some- 
thing — as non-existence cannot produce ex- 
istence — as non-entity cannot produce entity, 
there must always have been something self- 
existing, an eternal entity. To say that 
nothing can produce something, is to say 
that nothing is something ; for that which 
produces, must be or exist, and that which 
is or exists, is something, not nothing. Had 
there ever been a time, however remote, 
when there was nothing, there never could 
have been anything, for there could never 
have been a cause for anything. If anything 
receives existence, or begins to exist, there 
must be a cause, and this cause must exist 
before the effect or the thing caused ; and as 
a cause must be something, when there was 
nothing, there could have been no cause of 
anything, and nothing must ever have con- 
tinued, and something never could have 
existed. As that which causes must be 
something, and as the cause must exist be- 
fore the thing caused, to say that when 
there was nothing, something began to be 
is to say that something existed before any- 
thing did exist. In like manner, to say that 
a thing causes or produces itself, is to say 
that it exists before it does exist. The con- 
clusion is, that some one thing- or beinsr 
must have always existed, that something 
must be eternal ; or else that there is noth- 
ing now, and that there never will be any- 
thing. 

Having arrived at the conclusion that 
something must have always existed, or that 
nothing now exists, there remains but little 
ground for argument. It is true, there have 
been persons who have doubted everything, 
even their own existence, but this is too ab- 



surd to need a refutation. The theory is 
that men know nothing, that they may be 
mistaken in everything ; they imagine that 
there is a world, but it may not be so ; they 
fancy that they think, but are not sure of 
it ; they fancy that they are, that they ex- 
ist, but it may be unreal after all, and there 
may be nothing. If such intellectual dream- 
ing were worthy of a refutation, it contains 
a sufficient one in itself. A man fancies 
that he is, but does not know it. But that 
which fancies must exist. That which 
thinks must exist; but the dreamer does 
not know that he thinks : he may only think 
that he thinks. But he who thinks that he 
thinks, does really think ; and as that which 
doubts must really exist, he who doubts his 
own existence, by that very doubt proves 
his existence, beyond the power of doubt. 
Thus no man can evade the fact of his own 
existence; if he denies that anything ex- 
ists, that which denies must exist, and 
hence the very denial proves that something 
does exist. If he doubts his own existence, 
that which doubts must exist, and the doubt 
itself proves that he does exist. If his 
doubt is not real, and he only fancies or 
imagines that he doubts his own existence, 
that which fancies or imagines, must exist ; 
and hence, the most ethereal fancy or imagi- 
nation that ever exuded from the brain of 
man, proves a real existence. Those who 
deny or doubt their own existence, mock 
their own consciousness, and furnish a de- 
monstration of their own folly, which no 
wise man will undertake to gainsay. 

Consciousness is the highest degree of 
evidence ; yea, more, it is knowledge itself, 
which admits not of proof on the one hand, 
nor of refutation on the other. Every man 
is conscious of his own existence ; conscious- 
ness being that notice which the mind takes 
of its own operations, he thinks and recog- 
nizes the world of thought within him, and 
knows that he is, that he exists. He next 
sees, and hears, and feels, and tastes, and 
smells the world without, and becomes ac- 
quainted with the visible creation, and 
traces the outlines of the system and frame 



CHAP. I.] 



THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 



3 



of the Universe, and then inquires for a 
higher power who made them all. 

It has now been shown that nothing can- 
not produce something ; that if nothing had 
ever been, there could have been no cause 
for anything, and that nothing must ever 
have remained, and that something never 
could have existed ; and further, that some- 
thing does exist, and, therefore, something 
must have always existed, and must be 
eternal. This eternal existence or being, 
we call God. 

3. The fact being proved, that something 
must have always existed, and must be eter- 
nal, it necessarily drives us to the conclusion 
that matter, the visible creation, is eternal, 
and has always existed in some form, or that 
there is an eternal intelligent being, the 
Creator of all these things, whom we call 
God. The objection which learned Infi- 
dels sometimes urge against the existence of 
God, viz., that it is impossible that a being 
should exist without having begun to exist, 
that reason cannot comprehend such a truth, 
but inquires at once on the suggestion that 
there is a God, who made him or where did 
he come from, possesses not the slightest 
force. It has been shown that something 
must be eternal, and by denying the exists 
ence of God, they must admit the eternity 
of matter, and it is as easy to conceive how 
God can exist without having begun to ex- 
ist, as it is to conceive how the world can 
exist without having begun to exist ; and 
reason no more comprehends the one than 
the other, yet reason does comprehend most 
clearly that the one or the other must be 
true. 

The argument is now narrowed down to 
a single question, viz., is the visible Universe 
eternal, or is there an eternal God, who 
created all these things ? This question we 
will now examine. 

1. There is no proof of any kind or de- 
gree, which can be urged in support of the 
hypothesis that the world is eternal ; nor 
can there be the slightest proof adduced that 
there is not a God, and that he did not make 
the world. No intelligent Infidel will pre- 



tend to demonstrate that there is no God ; 
they only claim that we cannot know that 
there is a God. This leaves a fair field for 
experiment, and we will try and see what 
can be done in the form of proof. 

2. Keeping in view the established fact, 
that if the world is not eternal, there must 
be a God who created it, the mode in which 
we see things deriving existence around us, 
proves that there must have been a begin- 
ning. Plant produces plant, tree produces 
tree, animals spring from animals, and man 
derives his existence from man. Taking 
this view, it is self-evident that there must 
have been a first plant, which did not spring 
from a pre-existing plant ; there must have 
been a first tree which did not grow from 
the root or seed of a previously existing tree ; 
there must have been a first beast which 
was not the offspring of any previously ex- 
isting beast ; and there must have been a 
first pair of human beings, who where not 
begotten by any previously existing human 
beings. It matters not how far back your 
thoughts pursue the succession ; they may 
pass through ages beyond ages, still the 
same conclusion must be arrived at some- 
where, that there was a first of each class, a 
first man who did not, could not have de- 
rived his existence in the way we have de- 
rived ours. If the earth now produced 
plants and trees without seeds or scions ; if 
animals grew upon the trees ; and if men 
grew up from the earth without the hand 
of culture, we might have some ground for 
asserting that it had always been so, but 
such is not the case. We see everything 
around us which has life, vegetable or ani- 
mal, deriving existence in a manner which 
proves beyond the power of contradiction, 
that there must have been a first plant, a 
first animal, and a first man, which must 
have been created ; and if so, there must be 
a Creator, who existed before all things that 
have been made, and must have been eter- 
nal. This being we call God. The exist- 
ence of the first man can never be account- 
ed for by any theory of Infidelity, which de- 
nies the existcEce of God. Every sue- 



4 



THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 



[book I. 



cession must, in the very nature of the 
case have a beginning, and every series of 
causes and effects must have a first cause. 
Without a beginning there can be no such 
thing as succession, and without a first 
cause there can be no second cause, or 
series of causes. There must, therefore, have 
been a first man who was not the son of man, 
whose existence accounts for the existence 
of all other men, but whose own existence 
can never be accounted for, only by supposing 
an uncreated Creator, whom we call God. 

3. The marks of design which the visible 
creation everywhere exhibits, proves the ex- 
istence of a designer, an intelligent Creator. 
The human mind naturally and necessarily 
infers a contriver, a designer, from the un- 
mistakable signs of contrivance, and the 
adaptation of means to an end. Suppose 
a man traveling upon a desert, should see 
a human foot-print in the sand, he would 
have no doubt that some other traveler had 
passed that way. Should he discover a 
house in the wilderness he would know that 
a builder had been there ; he would not for 
a moment suppose that the house made it- 
self, or that nothing made it, nor yet that it 
had always been there, because he did not 
see the builder in or about it. Should he 
find a watch, as Dr. Paley supposes, he 
would infer that the watch had been made 
by some skilful hand. Suppose he had never 
before seen a watch, and was not able to 
comprehend the plan of its structure, and the 
principles of its movements, still he would 
never suppose that it made itself, or that it 
happened by chance .to be a watch ; but he 
would infer that it had been made, and that 
its maker, whoever he might be, was intelli- 
gent to design, and skillful to execute. Now 
we see on the face of the visible creation, 
marks of the Creator's hand, as plainly as 
the traveler could see the human foot-print 
on the sand, and we infer as certainly that 
there is a God, as he would from the foot- 
mark, that a traveler had passed that way. 
We see in the visible Universe a house vast- 
ly superior to the one the traveler discover- 
ed in the wilderness, and infer with no less 



certainty than he, that the builder had been 
at work. He saw no builder in or about 
the house, yet knew he had been there from 
the fact that he saw the house ; and so, 
though we cannot see God in or about his 
own temple of the Universe, we are equally 
sure that he is, and that he has been at 
work, from the fact that we see the building. 
The sun that rises and sets every day in the 
year, with all its planets, primary and sec- 
ondary, constitute a watch infinitely more 
wonderful than the one we have supposed 
the traveler to find ; it has told the minutes, 
and hours, and days, and years, and centu- 
ries of time since first it was put in motion, 
without irregularity or once running down ; 
and if the man who found the watch, infer- 
red without doubt that it had a maker, that 
it could not exist without, much more must 
we infer that there is a Creator who con- 
structed the great clock of time, which has 
the plain of the heavens for its dial, suns 
and worlds for its machinery, comets for its 
centenary alarms, and an unseen exhaust- 
less influence for its propelling force. This 
argument may be rendered still more clear 
and forcible by a few specifications of ob- 
vious marks of design. We need not go be- 
yond ourselves for ample illustrations. Man 
is " fearfully and wonderfully made," and his 
organization is too wonderfully adapted to 
the world without him, to have been the re- 
sult of accident. The lungs and the atmos- 
phere are suited to feach other for the pur- 
pose of respiration. The atmosphere is com- 
posed of several gases, each of which alone, 
is fatal to life, and yet they are so com- 
bined as to constitute its sustaining power. 
When we consider that the air did not form 
the lungs, and that the lungs did not form 
the air, their adaptation to each other is 
a clear mark of design on the part of that 
higher power that formed them both. 

The eye and the light are suited to each 
other in a manner to produce vision. The 
eye did not form the light, neither did the 
light form the eye, and yet they are exactly 
suited to each other in a manner which 
proves design, and exhibits means adapted 



CHAP. I.] 



THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 



to an end. If either the eye or the light 
were different there would be no vision. 
Can all this be the result of chance ? Cer- 
tainly not. A camera obscura is an appa- 
ratus representing the eye. The images of 
external objects are received through a 
double convex glass, and are exhibited in 
their native colors on some white matter 
placed within the machine, in the focus of 
the glass. This exhibits the philosophy of 
vision. Suppose an Infidel should be pre- 
sented with one of these camera obscura, 
and should be told that nobody made it, 
that it happened to be by chance, would he 
believe you? No; he would charge you 
with an attempt to impose upon him. How 
greatly then does he impose upon himself, 
when he assumes that the real eye should be 
so wonderfully formed by nothing, or by 
blind chance, and that light, by the same 
blind chance should be so wonderfully adapt- 
ed to the eye, as to produce the wonderful 
phenomenon of vision ? 

The atmosphere is adapted to the propa- 
gation of sound, and the human ear is adapt- 
ed to receive the sound by being sensitive to 
the vibrations of the atmosphere, and to 
notify the conscious mind of its presence and 
quality ; while the mind is impressed and 
feels its fountains stirred, and sounds mingle 
in accord and harmony, or otherwise. In 
all this, design is clearly seen, and here are 
means adapted to an end, which proves the 
existence of an intelligent Creator. The 
argument might be extended to almost any 
length, but need not be for effect, for if what 
has been said does not prove the point, more 
of a similar character would fail to do it. 
The book which we call the Bible, declares 
that " the fool hath said in his heart, there 
is no God;" and it appears to discriminate 
correctly, in this particular at least, for none 
but a fool would make such a declaration. 
And he even is represented saying only " in 
his heart," as though ashamed to speak it 
out, but some are less modest in these days ; 
but this fulfills another prediction which 
says that " ungodly men shall wax worse 
and worse, deceiving and being deceived." 



SECTION II. 

The Attributes of God. 

It having been shown that there is a God, 
it is proper to inquire into his attributes. 
The inquiry, in this place, is not to be made 
in the light of the Scriptures, but simply in 
the light of reason. 

1. God is eternal. This has already been 
proved, and will now be made the rallying 
point for the demonstration of other attri- 
butes of the divine nature. The argument 
which proves the eternity of God, need not 
be repeated ; it is simply that nothing can- 
not produce something, hence, as something 
now is, something must always have existed. 
This eternal being, this something which has 
always existed, we call God. To this con- 
clusion we are driven by the marks of in- 
telligence and design we everywhere see 
impressed upon the visible creation. 

2. God is Omnipotent. This follows from 
his eternity. As he is the cause of all 
things, he existed before all things, and hence, 
once possessed all power in the Universe ; 
all power is therefore derived from him, and 
must be dependent upon him. He from 
whom all power proceeds, and upon whom 
all other beings are dependent for the ener- 
gies they possess, must possess all power in 
himself, and must be Omnipotent or Al- 
mighty. He who creates can destroy ; hence, 
God having created all powers but his own, 
must be capable of putting an end to all sub- 
ordinate powers, and again possessing the 
only power in the universe in himself ; and he 
who can do this must be Omnipotent or 
Almighty. 

3. God is Omniscient or All-wise. As he 
is eternal, and existed when nothing else ex- 
isted, he must have possessed all wisdom in 
himself, and there cannot be a ray of intel- 
lectual light which has not emanated from 
him ; and he, from whom all wisdom pro- 
ceeds, must be All-wise. 

4. God is Omnipresent, or exists every- 
where. This follows from all the other at- 
tributes of the divine nature already estab- 
lished. He who is Almighty must exist 



6 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES 



[book I 



everywhere, for as no being can act where 
he is not, if God does not exist everywhere, 
he cannot act everywhere, and there must 
be places beyond his presence to which his 
power does not extend ; and if there be places 
to which his power does not extend, he can- 
not be Almighty. But it has been shown 
that God is Almighty from his eternity, and 
hence he must be Omnipresent. The same 
argument will hold good ia relation to the 
wisdom of God. Reason cannot conceive 
how perfect knowledge can exist beyond the 
presence of him who knows ; hence, God 
to be All-wise must exist everywhere, and 
as he is necessarily All- wise from the fact of 
his eternity, he must be Omnipresent, filling 
all in all. The fact of his being the Crea- 
tor of all things, must lead us to the same 
conclusion, that God exists everywhere. 
So far as the visible creation is concerned, 
including the solar system and the fixed 
stars, reason must teach that God pervades 
and fills the whole, from the fact that he 
made them, and upholds them by his power. 
The sun shines without wasting his fires, 
and worlds wing the circle of their orbits 
without loss of momentum ; which involves 
the presence of supernatural power. God 
is in the sun or it would cease to shine ; he 
is in every sun-beam or it would not glow ; 
he is in the planets or they would tire in their 
course ; and he is in the flower or it would 
not bloom. If then, God as Creator, must 
fill and pervade all creation, the point of 
his Omnipresence follows from the fact first 
established, that he existed before all things, 
and created all things that now exist. 

There are other attributes of the divine 
nature which might be contemplated in the 
light of reason, but what has preceded is 
sufficient to overthrow the Atheist,and lay 
foundation to stand upon, to graple with the 
Deist, on the question of revelation, and then 
the further inquiry into the attributes of the 
divine nature, will be more appropriately 
pursued in the light of the Scriptures. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTUKES. 

An argument for the Inspiration of the 
Scriptures, supposes it to have been proved 
or admitted that there is a God, who not 
only made and upholds the Universe, but 
who created man, and endowed him with 
his intellectual and moral nature. It would 
be absurd to argue that prophets and apos- 
tles were inspired to communicate the con- 
tents of the Bible to men, except upon the 
ground that there is a superior intelligence 
whom we call God, who is affirmed to be 
the author of such inspiration. 

In the preceding chapter, it has been 
proved that there is a God, which has pre- 
pared the way for an examination into the 
claims of the Scriptures as a revelation of 
his will to man. I will commence the ex- 
amination into the claims of the Scriptures 
with the possibility of a revelation of the 
will of God, and hope to proceed from pos- 
sibility to probability, and from probability 
to certainty. 



SECTION I. 

4 Revelation from God is Possible. 

1. God, who formed man and gave him 
his reason, and rendered him capable of 
reflection, of gaining knowledge, and of 
knowing many things, must be capable of 
bestowing a greater amount of knowledge 
and intellectual light at any time, upon any 
person or persons, for any general or specific 
purpose. This is all that is necessary to 
render a revelation possible; admit that 
God is capable of this, and you admit the 
possibility of inspiration. To deny that 
God can pour increased mental light upon 
any individual, and in effect, you affirm that 
when he created man he did all that he 
could by way of imparting knowledge, and 
exhausted his resources of intellectual light 
so as never to be capable of doing more. 
Such an idea is too absurd for candid com- 
mon sense, and the conclusion is that God 



CHAP. 11. J 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES- 



can impart any amount of knowledge lie 
may please, to any individual, and hence, lie 
can inspire any individual or individuals to 
teach or write his will, and impart to them 
a knowledge of future events. 

2. It is also possible for God to cause a 
person to be certain of the reception of a 
divine communication and revelation. The 
Infidel has often made this one of his strongest 
points of objection, but it is without force, 
when viewed in its true light. It is frankly 
admitted that enthusiasts are often led by 
a wild imagination, and that persons under 
the influence of a frenzied hope or fear, are 
fully satisfied of the things represented to 
them ; but all this does not prove that a man 
cannot have certain knowledge, and know 
whereof he affirms. There is much false- 
hood in the world, and many impostures? 
and many are deceived, but this does not 
prove that there is no truth, nor does it 
prove that no degree of evidence can as- 
sure a person of the truth. Men are de- 
ceived by falsehood, not by the truth. A 
man may be really deceived by a counterfeit, 
or he may be in doubt over it, when, let the 
genuine be presented, and he will know it 
in a moment, without doubt or possibility of 
being mistaken. Thus, though men are often 
deceived by error in the absence of truth, 
they may know the truth when it is present. 
Suppose it possible for a person possessing 
a wild imagination, to be deceived under 
strong excitement, so as really to believe he 
has a divine communication, vision or reve- 
lation from God, when he has, in fact, re- 
ceived no such thing ; all this does not prove 
that the same person, should God really 
make a communication to him, would not 
know the voice of God within him, or the 
divine manifestation, so as at once to dis- 
tinguish between the false and real vision, 
beyond the liability of being deceived. The 
argument, as has been remarked, proceeds 
upon the proof or admission that there is a 
God, who is the author of the human mind, 
and God who made the mind, must be capa- 
ble of communicating with it, and of mak- 
ing it know that he does communicate with 



it. This is certainly a sufficient reply to 
the Infidel objection, that a revelation is 
impossible, and that should man receive one 
he could not be certain of the fact. 

3. It is probable, if not absolutely certain 
that God did originally, directly instruct 
man. This is argued from the possession 
of faculties, which matter of fact declares 
man cannot acquire of himself. Who taught 
man the use of language ? It must be self- 
acquired, or it must have been taught him 
by his Maker. Men now learn language 
of their fellows, the younger learns of the 
older, but left to themselves, they would 
never learn to talk. Says Dr. Cumming* 
" It was alledged by some sceptics, that if 
you placed a man in a savage wilderness, he 
would instinctively know how to express 
himself in words ; but the experiment was 
once made, and it was found that he grew 
up dumb. An enthusiast, who went as far 
in an opposite direction, expressed his belief 
that if you were to isolate a man in a wilder- 
ness, he would be found to express himself 
in Hebrew ; the experiment was made and 
he grew up dumb." This proves that man 
untaught would not learn to express his 
thoughts by words ; how then did the first 
man learn the use of language? That 
species of scepticism which denies the divine 
inspiration, and revelation, denies the doc- 
trine of the fall, so that they cannot main- 
tain that humanity was originally more 
perfect than at present ; it is usually main- 
tained that man has progressed from a 
lower state to his present elevated one, and 
hence as man cannot now acquire the gift 
of language without an instructor, he could 
not have acquired it originally. The ques- 
tion returns, who taught the first man 
the use of language ? God, his Maker, must 
have done it, and this is equal to a revela- 
tion ; it was a revelation itself, and the possi- 
bility of a revelation is proved, and the 
fact of one having been made to man, is 
shown to be highly probable, if not certain. 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



SECTION II. 

A Revelation from God is Necessary. 

It will not be pretended by any for whose 
benefit the present argument is designed, 
that a revelation of the will of God is to be 
looked for in any other book than the Bible. 
It will be admitted that if we have any 
divinely-inspired writings, the Scriptures are 
such writings. If, then, it can be shown 
that the very elements of man's nature, and 
the state of human society induced by these 
elements, are such as absolutely to need a 
revelation, it will go far towards proving 
that the Scriptures are such revelation, 
since it is to be found in them, if anywhere, 
there being no other book with rival claims. 
Keeping in view the fact that there is a God, 
who is an Almighty, Infinitely wise and good 
Creator, it follows that there must be an 
agreement between the nature and wants 
of the intelligent creatures his hand forms 
and the provisions he makes for them, and 
the manner in which he governs them. 

It is, then, only necessary to prove that 
man, from his elemental nature and circum- 
stances, requires a revelation of his Maker's 
will, and it will follow that such a revelation 
has been given, just as certainly as Infinite 
power, wisdom and goodness are consistent 
with themselves. 

Man is a moral being, possessing intelli- 
gence, a will, and a conscience, which are 
the principal elements of a moral nature, 
and which render all who possess them ac- 
countable for their conduct. In view of 
these elements of our common nature, man 
finds within himself the highest proof of his 
own accountability, viz., his consciousness. 
Every man is conscious that his actions are 
right or wrong, and that he is accountable 
for them, and that he is innocent or guilty 
as they are right or wrong. A distinction 
between right or wrong, a belief or feeling 
that some acts are right and others wrong, 
is common to human nature, and has de- 
veloped itself in all ages, and in all countries, 
and in every branch of the human family. 
This proves that its development, is not 



accident, not the effect of some accidental, 
local and extraneous cause, but that it has 
its origin in the elements of human nature, 
and hence it follows that it is a moral na- 
ture ; that is, a nature of the developments 
of which right and wrong may be affirmed, 
involving accountability on the part of the 
actor. This proves that man is a moral 
being, morally accountable for his conduct, 
and per consequence, that he must be the sub- 
ject of a moral government. Government 
necessarily supposes a law, or rule of action, 
which emanates from the governor, and 
which is or may be known by the governed. 
The will of the Creator must be the para- 
mount law of the creature. There is aris- 
ing from the very elements of man's nature, 
a necessity that he, in some way, be made 
acquainted with the will of God concerning 
him, as the paramount law of his being, an 
only and sufficient rule of moral right and 
duty. It follows, then, that man must, in 
some way, be capable of understanding tho 
will of God, so far as his own responsibili- 
ties and duties are concerned, and the argu- 
ment is narrowed down to a single question, 
viz.. Is the will of God to be sought in the 
Scriptures, or may it be known by man 
through some other medium ? The Infidel 
must meet this issue, at this point, and iu 
this form, or he must go back and take up 
the foundations of the argument, by denying 
the existence of God as a Creator, and by 
denying that man possesses a moral nature, 
by denying that he possesses intelligence, a 
will and conscience, producing in him a 
sense of right and wrong. At this, per- 
haps, we should not be surprised, since what 
we claim to be inspiration declares that 
" the fool hath said in his heart there is no 
God ;" yet he who should deny that he pos- 
sesses a moral nature, and declares himself 
incapable of distinguishing between right 
and wrong, and affirms that he is not ac- 
countable for his conduct, would find it 
difficult to invest his opinions with much 
weight. The Infidel must admit his own 
moral nature and accountability, and assert 
the existence of his moral sense, a sense of 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



9 



right and wrong, before he can throw him- 
self into the scale of argument, and having 
done this, he must meet the issue as stated 
above, and admit that the will of our Cre- 
ator is contained in the Scriptures, or main- 
tain that it is communicated through some 
other medium. Were we to leave the argu- 
ment here, its weight would be in favor of 
the Scriptures, but it will be conclusive 
when it shall be further showii, first, that 
the wants of our moral nature are not met 
through any other medium, and secondly, 
that the Scriptures are precisely adapted to 
meet these wants. 

It has been shown that man, being a 
moral agent and the subject of a moral 
government, must, in some way, be made 
acquainted with the law of the Governor, 
that is to say, the will of God his Creator. 
The only question is, are we to look for the 
will of God, the rule of our faith and prac- 
tice, in the Scriptures, or is it to be sought 
elsewhere. We say in the Scriptures ; the In- 
fidel says it is to be sought elsewhere ? Let the 
Infidel side of the question be first examined. 

Leaving the Scriptures out of the ques- 
tion, where are we to find, or through what 
medium are we to arrive at a knowledge of 
the will of God ? It must be in some book 
or record other than the Scriptures, or 
human reason must be sufficient to deduce 
the will of the Creator from a view of the 
visible creation. If it is not to be learned 
from one or the other of these sources it 
cannot be learned but from the Scriptures, 
for there is no other source. If there be, let 
Infidels point us to it. It has been remarked 
that there is no volume which can with any 
degree of plausibility set up rival claims to 
the Scriptures, and a word only is necessary 
on this point. The Koran v/ill not be 
urged by Infidels against the Christian 
Scriptures as possessing rival claims. Such 
a position would ruin their own cause, for no 
one pretends to deny the authenticity of the 
Koran ; that it was written by Mahomet in 
the seventh century of the Christian era, 
that is, more than six hundred years after 
the birth of Christ, is admitted by all. This 



book does not pretend to reveal a new relig- 
ion, but to re-establish the religion of Adam, 
Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus Christ, 
and clearly acknowledges the authority of 
the Jewish Scriptures, so that if our Bible 
is untrue, the Koran must also be untrue. 
It is also too plain to be denied that all the 
really valuable doctrines and moral precepts 
of the Koran are borrowed from our Scrip- 
tures. 

Nor will Infidels urge that any of the books 
that may be found among the oriental na- 
tions present higher claims to inspiration 
than the Bible. A ray of truth may here 
and there gleam upon the dark pages of 
those books, but the absurdities which make 
up the volumes are gross and overwhelming. 
We should not fear to submit the question 
to enlightened Infidels, if the decision was 
to be upon the relative claims of the respec- 
tive volumes. Take all the books in the 
world claiming to be inspired, and claiming 
to teach the will of God by authority, and 
place the Bible among them, and then let it 
be assured that one of them is and must be 
received as teaching the will of God and the 
duties which we owe to God, our fellow be- 
ings, and ourselves, and a Yoltaire or a 
Hume would select the Bible as possessing 
the highest claims, and as containing the 
most pure morality. There is then no ri- 
val book, and we must take the Scriptures, 
or search for a knowledge of truth aad duty 
in the unwritten volume of nature. 

We have now narrowed the question down 
to a single point, namely, is human reason 
capable of deducing the will of the Creator 
from a view of the visible creation ? The 
real point involved is the sufficiency or in- 
sufficiency of human reason ; to talk about 
the light of nature aside from human reason, 
is as unintelligible as to talk to a blind man 
of the light of the sun, moon, and stars, or 
of the colors of the rainbow. The visible 
creation can be read only by the eye of rea- 
son, and speaks only in the ear of reason, 
and the only question is, can reason, left to 
its own operations without revelation or su- 
pernatural light, by availing itself of all the 



10 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



helps which the invisible creator affords, ar- 
rive at a sufficient degree of knowledge on 
the subject of religious faith and duty, to 
answer the demands of our moral nature ? 
The universal experience and consciousness 
of mankind answer, no. The proof on this 
point is overwhelming. 

No nation, people, community or family 
ever did arrive at anything like a reasona- 
ble system of religious faith and practice, 
without a revelation from God. What In- 
fidels may have done, or be capable of doing, 
who have been reared and educated in a 
Christian land, and imbibed the moral rules 
and maxims of the Scriptures, while they 
have rejected the authority of the book, is 
not the point ; but what has been done by 
the wisest and best of nations and individuals, 
who have had no knowledge of the Scrip- 
tures ? Gather up the records of all nations 
embracing their history, their religion, their 
creeds and homilies, and there will not be 
found in them the elements of a religious 
faith and practice, which the reason of an 
Infidel of Christendom will not condemn on 
sight. The wisest and most refined nations, 
among whom the arts and sciences have 
flourished most, have been gross idolaters, 
and have employed their arts in manufactur- 
ing their own objects of worship. The more 
wise and learned, who were above worship- 
ing the work of men's hands, have known 
only enough on the subject of religion to 
convince them of the necessity of celestial 
light, of a divine teacher. They did not 
pretend to know what was truth and what 
was error concerning the gods and human 
destiny, but only taught things as probable. 
Plato himself begins his discourse concern- 
ing the gods and the generation of the world, 
by cautioning his disciples " not to expect 
anything beyond a likely conjecture con- 
cerning these things." " A likely conjec- 
ture," then, is all that the wisest philoso- 
phers have been enabled to attain to, while 
the masses paid their blind devotion to im- 
ages of wood and stone. Let the character 
the moral attributes of their gods speak and 
tell what human reason can do in the dis- 



covery of religious truth. Some of their gods 
were the greatest monsters that ever walked 
upon the earth. Mercury was a thief, and 
was enrolled among the gods on account of 
his being expert at stealing. Bacchus was 
a drunkard and sensualist. Yenus was a 
dissipated and an abandoned prostitute. 
Mars was a savage monster, taking pleasure 
only in war, battle-fields and blood. Such was 
their ambition for god-making, that there 
was not a vice seen in depraved human con- 
duct, not a lust that clamors for indulgence, 
not an unholy passion that nestles in the 
human heart, or flashes out its revengeful 
fires, which was not deified by the Greeks 
and Eomaus, the most learned and refined 
nations on which the light of the sun ever 
shone who had not the Scriptures. The 
countries over which these imaginary gods 
presided, were the birth-places and homes of 
Homer, Plato, Socrates, Yirgil and Cicero ; 
an acquaintance with whose productions is 
thought to be necessary to give the finishing 
touch to a classic education in our own times. 
If then, human reason cultivated to the high- 
est degree as above, could remain so ignorant 
on the all-important subject of religion, and 
confess its ignorance, and sigh for a brighter 
and more certain hght, as it did, the argu- 
ment is certainly conclusive in proof of the 
necessity of a revelation. According to 
Christian chronology the world has been in 
existence nearly six thousand years; and 
Infidels generally maintain that it has stood 
much longer, and yet it cannot be shown 
that the operations of human reason in a 
single instance, has ever discovered and em- 
bodied a system of religious faith and prac- 
tice satisfactory to itself. Human reason 
can discover its own defects, but it cannot 
supply the lack ; it can see the necessity of 
a certain standard of religious faith and 
practice, but the desideratum remains until 
God sends celestial light from above, and 
the voice of the teacher is heard, who " spake 
as never man spake." If there was no other 
argument on the point, this would be suffi- 
cient to prove that unaided reason can never 
make a sufficient discovery of religious truth 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIEATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



11 



and duty to answer the demands of onr moral 
nature. In view of the undeniable fact that 
six thousand years have not sufficed to make 
the discovery, it is folly, yea, madness to 
undertake to prove that it ever will or can 
be made. It is a significant fact that none 
pretend to the sufficiency of human reason, 
laut such as enjoy the light of the Scriptures. 
The heathens confess their ignorance and 
the want of light which is beyond their 
reach, while Infidels of Christendom, on 
whose souls the inspired volume has flashed 
its hallowed beams, alone assert the suffi- 
ciency of reason. 

It has been proved that human reason, 
unaided by revelation, has never made dis- 
coveries of religious truth sufficient to an- 
swer the demands of our moral nature. It 
is now proposed to show more directly that 
it cannot ; that human reason is not adapted 
to make such discoveries, and with the data 
before it, the visible creation, it never can 
deduce sufficient truth to constitute a cer- 
tain and authoritative standard of religious 
faith and practice. 

1. The truths necessary to be known, 
many of them at least, necessarily lie be- 
yond the ken of human reason ; neither the 
mind itself, nor the visible creation furnishes 
the elements out of which reason can con- 
struct the major and minor propositions of 
an argument, which shall contain necessarily, 
and from which may be drawn out the nec- 
essary truth as a certain conclusion from 
the premises. Eeason has no power to ope- 
rate further than it has premises to operate 
with, which are known and understood. 
Eeason always begins with something al- 
ready known, or which it takes for granted, 
and with the materials which it already pos- 
sesses, it goes to work and arranges them, 
compares them one with the other, and judg- 
ing of them, it deduces a conclusion, which 
conclusion is supposed to contain a newly 
discovered truth. But which are the known 
truths without revelation, from which reason 
can deduce all other needful truths. Which 
of the endless phenomena contain the ele- 
ments of religious truth ? Is it the sun, the 



moon, some of the stars, heaven or earth, 
sea or land, summer or winter, night or day, 
from which reason can deduce all needful 
rehgious truth ? 

These are the elements with which reason 
operates, but out of the who!e it can never 
construct a major and minor proposition, 
the legitimate conclusion of which shall de- 
termine the first thing, concerning the na- 
ture and punishment of sin, how the sinner 
may be saved from it, whether there be a 
future state or not, and if there be, what 
will be its condition and circumstances. 
These and other needful religious truths are 
not contained in any or all of the elements 
within the grasp of reason. Admitting 
that the " heavens declare the glory of God, 
and the firmament showeth forth his handy- 
work," it might still follow, first, that the 
glory and handy-work are comprehended 
only by those whose souls have been en- 
lightened by inspiration, concerning God 
and creation ; and secondly, that admitting 
that the glory and handy-work are visible 
to all, they may not contain or lead to the 
discovery of all needful religious truth. 
The religionists of learned Athens, saw the 
glory and wonderful works of God, but God 
himself, his moral nature, and the principles 
of his government, they saw not, and in 
their blindness, erected an altar " to the un- 
known God." It does not follow, that be- 
cause some truths may be known, or are 
known, that therefore all truth may be 
known. Admitting that men may attain 
to a knowledge of some religious truths and^ 
some duties, it does not, and cannot follow, 
that from these known truths and duties, 
reason may infer all other truths and duties, 
by any process of deduction of which it is 
capable. To make this appear, it must be 
first proved that there is a necessary connec- 
tion between the truths and duties which 
are known, and all others, and that such 
connection is visible to the eye of human 
reason. Such proof no man has or ever- 
can furnish. A man may know some of 
the duties he owes to his neighbor, because 
he sees, first the relation he sustains to that 



12 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



neighbor, and secondly, the influence certain 
acts have upon his neighbor in promoting 
his happiness or misery ; but it does not 
follow that he may therefore know all reli- 
gious truth, for he cannot with equal clear- 
ness see all the relations of the moral Uni- 
verse, the relation he sustains to a future 
state, and the influence of all his acts upon 
the condition of that state. The moral at- 
tributes of God, the principles of his moral 
government, the nature and punishment of 
sin, how a sinner may be saved under the 
government of God, the fact and condition 
of a future state, and the immortality of the 
soul, can never be satisfactorily understood 
from the hght of reason ; the premises which 
contain these truths, from which alone they 
can be certainly deduced, lie beyond the ken 
of human reason ; their source is the nature 
and will of God, of which human reason is 
but an emitted ray, and it cannot turn back, 
and scan its own source, and comprehend 
him who gave it being, and hence the truths 
themselves can be attained only by a reve- 
lation from God. 

2, The imperfect and constantly progres- 
sive developments of human reason in all 
other branches of science, furnishes conclu- 
sive evidence of its insufficiency in matters 
of religion. The figures were invented by 
an Arabian, the art of printing was discov- 
ered in the fifteenth century ; Harvey dis- 
covered the circulation of the blood about 
two hundred and twenty years ago ; New- 
ton discovered the principle of gravitation, 
about a hundred and sixty years ago, from 
the simple circumstance of seeing an apple 
fall from a tree ; Fulton applied steam to 
navigation, and went up the Hudson river 
with his first boat at the rate of nearly five 
miles an hour in 1807 ; Railroads have been 
constructed within the last twenty years ; 
and but few years have elapsed since 
Morse first succeeded in harnessing up the 
lightning for the conveyance of intelligence. 
Progress is the law of reason, and to pro- 
gTCSs is to change, and to change is to con- 
fess that we have been mistaken, or that 
-reason has furnished but an imperfect light. 



Reason has at hand, the elements with which 
to operate in the investigation of the physi- 
cal sciences, and yet she has not perfected 
one of them, but is perpetually changing 
and improving them, while new ones are 
constantly being discovered which have laid 
hid from the most penetrating glance of 
reason's eye from the beginning of creation. 
With such undeniable evidence before us, of 
the imperfection and uncertainty of human 
reason in relation to the most useful and 
plainest arts and sciences, it is madness to 
affirm that this same imperfect and uncer- 
tain reason can, without the aid of celestial 
light, grasp the deeper and darker truths of 
a spiritual nature, truths that have their 
centre in the infinite mind of Jehovah, and 
that embrace realities and a destiny that 
lie beyond the bourn of the physical world 
we now inhabit, far in a spirit land, to which 
we have no access until after death, and 
from which no traveler has returned to give 
us information ? Such is the folly of main- 
taining the sufficiency of human reason in 
matters of religion, without the aid of reve- 
lation. 

3. The different degrees of the power of 
reason possessed by different persons, neces- 
sarily renders it imperfect and insufficient as 
a guide in matters of religious faith and 
duty. Suppose it were admitted that such 
minds as Newton, and Lock, and Franklin, 
and Webster, can reason acutely enough to 
discover all needful religious truth and duty 
from the light of nature without the assist- 
ance of revelation, still the masses would be 
in comparative darkness. The discoveries 
of such great minds could never be made 
available for the common people. A reli- 
gion to meet the wants of mankind must be 
adapted to all classes, and such as may be 
comprehended by the smallest capacity 
where there is intelligence enough to involve 
accountability. Such is the religion of the 
Bible, for though it contains truths which 
none but the learned and wise can under- 
stand, and which will require eternity to ex- 
plain fully to their comprehension, yet all 
that is essential to practical life, and to the 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OP THE SCRIPTURES. 



13 



exercise of true saving faith, and the enjoy- 
ment of peace with God, and a hope that 
reaches beyond the shadows of death, may 
be grasped by the smallest capacity and the 
most unlettered reader of the Scriptures. 

4. The want of authority that must at- 
tend all systems and principles, which are 
the mere deductions of human reason, proves 
it insufficient in matters of religion. Al- 
lowing that the most learned and wise can 
glean sufficient religious truth from the field 
of nature to answer their own purpose, the 
less talented and less learned can never 
avail themselves of their discoveries. In 
matters of religion, each accountable being 
needs to know and understand for himself. 
This is impossible if the unlearned have got 
to take the deductions of the philosopher for 
a standard of religious truth. They under- 
stand not the principles upon which he rea- 
sons, they understand not his propositions, 
they comprehend not his mental operation, 
they see not the connection between his 
propositions and conclusions, and have only 
his deductions without any proof which they 
can understand ; they rest, so far as they can 
see, upon his mere assertion. This is insuf- 
ficient, and makes a man's religious faith and 
hopes depend upon the unsupported declara- 
tions of a man, who may, for all that we 
can know, be mistaken, or who may deceive 
us by design. 

SECTION III. 

The Genuineness of the Old Testament. 

"When it is affirmed that the Scriptures 
are genuine, the meaning is, that the several 
books were written by the persons whose 
names they bear. Were there such men as 
Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Ezekiel, 
Daniel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, 
James, Peter and Jude, and did they write 
the books which bear their names ? This 
is an important question ; and if it be an- 
swered in the negative, the argument is at 
an end ; but if it be answered in the affirma- 
tive, an important point is gained towards 



establishing the inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures. It is not necessary to examine the 
claims of each book separately ; it will be 
sufficient to establish their claims as a whole, 
and to do this, it is only necessary to dis- 
tinguish between the Old and New Testa- 
ments. Let us now glance at the argument 
in support of the genuineness of the Old 
Testament Scriptures. 

1. There is no proof that they were writ- 
ten by any other persons, and at any other 
tinie, than appears upon their face, and than 
what has always been claimed for them. 
We find them in existence, bearing certain 
claims upon their face, and those who hold 
them, by whom they have been preserved, 
claim for them' that they are the genuine 
works of the persons whose names they bear, 
and so far as we have any means of tracing 
their history, they have always been held in 
the same estimation, and the same claim has 
been urged in their behalf, while no proof 
has or can be offered that they were written 
by any other persons, at any other period. 
This is sufficient of itself. The fact that 
they are, and are known to have existed for 
many centuries with certain claims upon 
their face, which have always been urged by 
those who have possessed them, must stand 
good until some proof is offered to the con- 
trary. Let those who repudiate the Scrip- 
tures, show who did write them, and when 
and where they were written, if they are 
not genuine ; let them show when and where 
they made their first appearance, if their 
origin was not what it is claimed to have 
been. 

2. The internal evidence that the Scrip- 
tures are genuine, found in the volume itself, 
is very conclusive. The Old Testament is 
its own best and only connected and authen- 
tic history, and its history of itself, furnishes 
clear proof of its own genuineness. It opens 
with what is claimed to be the writings of 
Moses, and he forms the central point of the 
Old Testament, and is presented as the first 
great prophet and law-giver of the Jewish 
nation. The work opens with the Creation 
of the world, and proceeds with its guilty 



14 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



history, until the Jews become a distinct 
people, and then it confines its record prin- 
cipally to them. It commences the history 
of the Jews as a distinct people with the 
call of Abraham, and completes their na- 
tionality with their flight from Egypt, the 
delivery of the law by Moses, and their sel^ 
tlement in Canaan under the command of 
Joshua. Here ends the first portion of sa- 
cred history with the first five books of Mo- 
ses and the book of Joshua. Was not this 
the origin of the Jews as a nation ? and is 
not this the first portion of their history ? 
If the answer be in the negative, we demand 
what was their origin, and where is ihe his- 
tory of that origin ? This is their own his- 
tory of themselves, and it is more clear and 
probable upon its face, as a mere matter of 
history, than can be shown of any other an- 
cient nation. The early history of the 
Egyptians, G-recians, and Eomans is in 
comparison with Jewish history, more ob- 
scure than twilight compared with noon day. 
If the question be answered in the affirma- 
tive, that such was the origin of the Jews 
as a nation, and that such is the first portion 
of their history, then are the books of the 
Old Testament genuine. 

Having settled the question of the first 
division of Jewish history, let us trace their 
history down to its close, and see if we do 
not find connecting links, facts and allusion 
running through the whole, joining the parts 
together and proving it to be genuine. It 
appears upon the face of the record that 
the civil, moral and religious law of the 
Jews was settled by Moses, their first ruler 
and historian ; this law we find recorded at 
length in the books attributed to him. Ac- 
cording to the record, this law was given 
2341 years prior to the present date, A. D. 
1850 ; and through all the other books mak- 
ing up the entire record, and covering about 
fifteen centuries to the close of the history, 
we find distinct traces of the system. A 
few instances will be sufficient for illustra- 
tion. Four hundred and eighty-seven years 
after the law was given, David in delivering 
his last charge to his son Solomon, said, 



" keep the charge of the Lord thy Grod, to 
walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and 
his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is 
written in the law of Moses ;" 1 King ii. 3. 
This proves that the Book of Kings was 
wTittcn after the Book of Exodus, and that 
David lived after Moses. Seven hundred 
and ninety-three years after the law was 
given, and 317 years after the last mentioned 
date, the Prophet Isaiah, Chap. Ixiii. 12, 
inquires, "Where is he that led them by 
the right hand of Moses with his glorious 
arm, dividing the water before them, to 
make himself an everlasting name ?" 

Daniel, 953 years after the giving of the 
law, chap. ix. 11-13, refers distinctly to 
the law of Moses. Only two years later, 
955, after the giving of the law, it was pub- 
licly read, and is called the law of Moses. 
(Ezra iii. 2.) The Prophet Malachi, who 
flourished 1097 years after Moses, uttered 
this expressive text : " Remember the law 
of Moses, my servant, which I commanded 
unto him in Horeb, for all Israel, with the 
statutes and judgments." (Mai. iv. 4.) 

It should be remarked that the same 
references are kept up to the law of Moses, 
and to the several books of the prophets in 
the New Testament Scriptures, which arc 
not now under examination. These facts 
show the progress of the record, and prove, 
beyond a doubt, that for a period of fifteen 
centuries, while it was being filled up, it 
was acknowledged by the Jews as contain- 
ing their authentic history, and this set- 
tles the question of the genuineness of the 
books. 

To this we have to add the fact, that it is 
known to have been translated into Greek 
as early as 250 years prior to the com- 
mencement of the Christian era. A copy 
of the Greek version, called the Septuagint, 
was deposited in the Library at Alexandria, 
as early as the above date. We believe no 
other history of ancient times can be pro- 
duced, which, on examination, will be found 
to present such strong internal evidence of 
its genuineness. Can there be a record 
produced from Egypt, Phoenicia, Greece, 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



15 



or Rome, which gives as clear an account of 
the origin and progress of these nations, and 
presenting the same amount of internal evi- 
dence of genuineness ? We think not : we 
think no student of history will pretend it 
Then we must admit the genuineness of the 
Scriptures, or call nothing genuine that 
ancient. 

3. History confirms the genuineness of 
the Old Testament. 

Before commencing our quotations from 
history, it is proper to make three remarks, 
as follows : 

(1 .) The Jows, from the very nature of their 
civil and religious constitution, were very 
much isolated from the other nations of the 
earth, rendering them rather obscure. They 
never mingled with other nations, but in 
direct violation of their own sacred law, or 
by being conquered and held as captives by 
other nations. This would tend to prevent 
frequent allusions being made to them in 
the records of other nations. 

(2.) The early histories of other nations 
are exceedingly meagre, consisting of mere 
fragments that have come down to us despite 
the wasting hand of time, and the ravages 
of the dark and barbarous ages. This 
is mainly owing, no doubt, to the destruc- 
tion of the great Alexandrian Library, 
which is said to have been burned by the 
Saracens, when they took the city, A. D. 642. 

Here was consumed the history and wis- 
dom of the world, collected from all previous 
ages. When we find extracts made prior 
to this date, from authors whose works are 
not extant, it is reasonable to suppose that 
the works from which such extracts were 
made, were consumed at the burning of the 
great Alexandrian Library. 

(3.) Notwithstanding all these disadvan- 
tages for obtaining corroborating testimony 
to the Scriptures, from profane history, we 
may still find what is sufficient to answer 
the purpose ; more indeed than could have 
been reasonably expected. We will now 
present a few extracts which will go to 
prove the antiquity and genuineness of the 
Old Testament Scriptures. 



We will first quote a remarkable passage 
from Josephus, who is regarded quite as 
reliable as any profane historian. If his 
direct testimony was to be admitted, it 
would settle the whole question, for he pro- 
fessedly vindicates the antiquity and genu- 
ineness of the Old Testament ; but we do 
not propose to rely upon him, in this point 
of light, but only depend upon him as hav- 
ing faithfully quoted other and more ancient 
authors, to whose works we have not access, 
or which are now not extant. After having 
given an account of the flood, and of Noah's 
Ark, as related in the Bible, Josephus 
says, "All the writers of the barbarian 
histories make mention of this flood, and of 
this Ark; among them is Berossus the 
Chaldean. For when he was describhig 
the circumstances of the flood, he goes on 
thus : ' It is said, there is still some part of 
this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the 
Cordyaeans, and that some people carry off 
the bitumen which they take away, and use 
chiefly as amulets for the averting of mis- 
chiefs.' Hieronymus, the Egyptian, also, 
who wrote the Phoenician antiquities, and 
Manases, and a great many more make 
mention of the same. Nay, Nicholas of 
Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book hath a 
particular relation about them ; when he 
speaks thus : ' There is a great mountain 
in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon 
which it is reported that many who fled 
at the time of the deluge were saved ; and 
that one who was carried in an ark, came 
on shore upon the top of it ; and that the 
remains of the timber were a great while 
preserved.' This might be the man about 
whom Moses the legislator of the Jews 
wrote." Josephus Vol. I. 17, 18. 

From this quotation it is clear, that the 
records of oriental nations, other than the 
Jews, contained traces of the flood which is 
so clearly described in the Bible. If these 
opinions concerning the flood, were real 
traditions handed down from father to son, 
until they were entered upon Egyptian, 
Chaldean, and Phcenician records, then is 
the Bible account true ; but if these traces 



16 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



of the story of the flood were only stories 
repeated from the Jewish account of the 
flood, then is the Bible proved to be older 
than the records of the most ancient nations, 
since the traces of its history is found upon 
their records. At any rate, it proves that 
the books of Moses were known to the 
writer, as it alludes to him. Take another 
quotation relating to the Bible history of 
Noah's family. The Bible says. Gen. x. 6. 
"The sons of Ham were Gush, Mizraim, 
and Phut, and Canaan." Josephus writes 
thus : " Of the four sons of Ham, time has 
not at all hurt the name of Cush ; for the 
Ethiopians, over whom he reigned are, even 
at this day, both by themselves and by all 
men in Asia, called Cushites. The memory 
also of the Mesraites is preserved in their 
name ; for all we who inhabit 'this country 
(of Judea) called Egypt Mestre, and the 
Egyptians Mestreans. Phut also was the 
founder of Libya, and called the inhabit- 
ants Phutites from himself ; there is also a 
river in the country of the Moors which 
bears that name ; whence we may see that 
the Grecian historiographers mention that 
river, and the adjoining country by the ap- 
pellation of Phut." Vol. I., 21. 

Here are the names of the sons of Ham, 
as recorded in the Bible, and what gives 
force to the statements of Josephus, is, the 
fact that he states them as matters generally 
known when he wrote, and appeals to most 
of the Grecian historiographers, as having re- 
corded the facts he stated. This he would 
not dared to have done had it not been so. 
Thus are these Grecian historiographers 
made to confirm the Mosaic record. Jo- 
sephus says again, " There are then records 
among the Tyrians, kept with great exact- 
ness, and include accounts of the facts done 
among them, and such as concern their 
transactions, with other nations also. There- 
in it was recorded that the temple was built 
by king Solomon at Jerusalem, one hundred 
and forty-three years and eight months before 
the Tyrians built Carthage ; and in these an- 
nals the building of our temple is related ; for 
Hirom,the king of Tyre, was the friend of Sol- 



omon. He was ambitious to contribute to 
the splendor of this edifice of Solomon, and 
made him a present of 112 talents of gold. 
He also cut down the most excellent timber 
out of that mountain which is called Liba- 
nus, and sent it to him. Solomon also not 
only made him many other presents, by way 
of requital, but gave him a country in Gali- 
lee, also that was called Chabulon." Yol. 
H. 481. 

"What Josephus here gives as from the 
records of Tyre, is recorded in the ninth 
chapter of the first Book of Kings, and the 
accounts essentially agree. Josephus hav- 
ing stated the contents of the records of 
Tyre, proceeds as follows : " Now that this 
may not depend on my bare word, I will 
produce for a witness Dius, one that is be- 
lieved to have written the Phoenician his- 
tory after an accurate manner. This Dius, 
therefore, writes in his histories of the Phce- 
nicians. ' Upon the death of Abibalus, his 
son Hirom took the kingdom. This king 
raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, 
and enlarged it ; he also joined the temple 
of Jupiter Olympus, which stood before in 
an Island by itself, to the city, by raising a 
causway between them, and adorned that 
temple with donations of gold. He, more- 
over, went up to Libanus, and had timber 
cut down for the building of temples. They 
say further, that Solomon, when he was 
king of Jerusalem, sent problems to Hirom, 
to be solved, and desired that he would send 
others back for him to solve.' These things 
are attested to by Dius, and confirm what 
we have said upon the same subjects be- 
fore." Yol. II. 482. 

It will be observed that the Bible story 
of the connections between Solomon and 
Hirom, king of Tyre, is here confirmed by 
the written history of Tyre, as extant and 
well known at the time Josephus wrote. 
Josephus says again, " I will now relate 
what hath been written concerning us in the 
Chaldean histories, which records have a 
great agreement with our books in other 
things also. Berosus shall be witness to 
what I say ; he was by birth a Chaldean. 



HAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



17 



rell known by the learned on account of 
is publication of the Chaldean books of 
stronomy and philosophy among the Greeks, 
'his Berosus, therefore, following the most 
ncient records of their nation, gives us a 
istory of the deluge of waters that then 
appened, and of the destruction of man- 
ind thereby, and agrees with Moses' narra- 
ion thereof. He also gives us an account 
f that Ark, wherein Noah, the origin of our 
ace, was preserved, when it was brought 
D the highest port of the Armenian moun- 
ains ; after which he gives us a catalogue 
f the posterity of Noah, and adds the 
ears of their chronology, and at length 
omes down to Nabolassor, who was king of 
5abylon and of the Chaldeans. And when 
e was relating the acts of this king, he 
escribes to us — ' How he sent his son Na- 
luchodonosor against Egypt, and against 
ur land, with a great army; and how, 
ly that means, he subdued them all, and 
et our temple that was at Jerusalem on 
.re ; nay, and removed our people entirely 
ut of their own country, and transferred 
hem to Babylon ; when it so happened that 
ur city was desolate during the interval of 
eventy years, until the days of Cyrus, king 
f Persia.' " Page 483. 

Here Josephus actually quotes from tlie 
Chaldean historian, what is a perfect con- 
irmation of the Bible record. We will 
lere drop Josephus until we make one quo- 
ation from another source. Does any one 
loubt that there was such a man as Alex- 
nder, called the Great, and that he subdued 
he world with his armies. Just as surely 
ls there was such a man, there was at the 
ame time a city called Jerusalem, a nation 
)f Jews, holding to and practicing such a 
■eligion as is recorded in the Old Testament. 
Toldsmith in his history of Greece, Chap. 
[IV., Paragraphs 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 
^ives the following. 

" From Tyre, Alexander marched to Jeru- 
salem, fully resolved to punish that city, for 
laving refused to supply his army with 
3rovisions during the last siege, but the re 
lentment of the conqueror was averted by 
• 2 



meeting a procession of the inhabitants of 
that city on his way, marching out to re- 
ceive him, dressed in white, with a Jewish 
high priest before them, with a mitre on his 
head, on the front of which the name of God 
was written. 

' The moment the king perceived the high 
priest, he advanced towards him with an 
air of the most profound respect, bowed his 
body, adored the august name upon his 
front, and saluted him that wore it with reli- 
gious veneration. Then the Jews, surround- 
ing Alexander, raised their voices to wish 
him every kind of prosperity. All the spec- 
tators were seized with inexpressible sm-- 
prise ; they could scarcely believe their eyes ; 
and did not know how to account for a 
sight so contrary to their expectation, and 
so vastly improbable. 

" Parmenio, who could not yet recover 
from his astonishment, asked the king how 
it came to pass that he who was adored by 
every one, adored the high priest of the 
JcAvs ? ' I do not,' replied Alexander, ' adore 
the high priest, but the God whose minister 
he is ; for v/hilst I was at Dia in Mace- 
donia, my mind wholly fixed on the great 
design of the Persian war, as I was revol- 
ving the methods how to conquer Asia, 
this very man dressed in the same robes, ap- 
peared to me in a dream, exhorted me to 
banish my fear, bade me cross the Helles- 
pont boldly, and assured me that God would 
march at the head of my army, and give me 
the victory over that of the Persians.' 

"This speech, delivered with an air of 
sincerity, no doubt had its effect in encour 
aging the army, and establishing an opin 
ion that Alexander's mission was from hea- 
ven. Alexander having embraced the high 
priest, was conducted by him to the temple, 
where, after he had explained to him many 
prophecies in different parts of the Old Tes- 
tament, concerning his invasion, he taught 
him to offer up a sacrifice in the Jewish 
manner. 

"Alexander was so much pleased with- 
his reception upon this occasion, that before 
he left Jerusalem, he assembled the JewSf, 



18 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book T. 



and bade them ask any favor they should 
think proper. Their request was ; To be 
allowed to live according to their ancient 
laws and maxims ; to be exempted from 
tribute every seventh year, as they were by 
their laws exempted from labor, and conse- 
quently liave no harvest ; they requested, 
that such of their brethren as settled in 
Asia should be indulged in the same priv- 
ileges. Thus, being gratified in all their 
desires, great numbers of them offered to 
enlist themselves in his army. Soon after 
the Samaritans demanded the same favors ; 
but he gave them an evasive answer, and 
promised to take the matter into considera- 
tion, upon his return." 

This proves that the Jewish system exis- 
ted in the days of Alexander ; their laws 
were even then called " ancient," which 
proves that they must have existed for a 
long time. The book of Leviticus then ex- 
isted, for it is in this book that the law is 
found which exempted them from labor 
every seventh year, referred to in the last 
paragraph quoted.- The book of Daniel 
then existed, for it is in this book that the 
prophecy is contained concerning Alexan- 
der, as named in the fourth paragraph quo 
ted. S€e Lev. xiv. 3, 4, and Dan. viii. 5, 
G, 7, 21. It is said that many of the Jews 
enlisted i:i Alexander's army ; now let us 
ft^e what clear traces we can find of these 
Jews afterwards in confirmation of the re- 
coJxL At Babylon, we are told that Alex- 
ander employed his army to rebuild the 
heathen temples, and that the Jews refused 
to assist, because, we must suppose, their 
law forbade idolatry. Josephus quotes 
Hecateus as saying — " Alexander was once 
at Babylon, and had an intention to rebuild 
the temple of Belus that was fallen to decay, 
and in order thereto, he commanded all his 
soldiers to bring earth thither ; but the 
Jews and they only would not comply with 
that command." Josephus, vol. II., 488. 

This same story is repeated by Rollin in 
his Ancient History, vol. II. 575, 576. We 
need not quote his words as they are in ex- 
^ct accordance with the above, with^ the 



exception that he is a little more full than 
Josephus. One more quotation will close 
this view of the subject. Josephus affirms 
that, Hecateus, the author named above, 
states that " the Jews went as auxiliaries 
along with king Alexander, and after him 
with his successors," and then he quotes 
from him the following story. Josephus 
represents Hecateus as saying, "As I myself 
was going to the Red Sea, there followed 
us a man whose name was MossoUam ; he 
was one of the Jewish horsemen who con- 
ducted us ; he was a person of great cour- 
age, of a strong body, and by all allow^ed to 
be the most skilful archer that was either 
among the Greeks or Barbarians. 

" Now this man, as people were in great 
numbers passing along the road, and a cer- 
tain augur was observing an augury by a 
bird, and requiring them all to stand still, 
inquired what they stayed for ? Hereupon, 
the augur showed him the bird from whence 
he took his augury, and told him that if the 
bird staid where he was, they ought all to 
stand still, but that if he got up and fled 
onward, they must go forward ; but if he 
flew backv/ard, they must retire again. 
Mossollam made no reply, but drew his 
bow, and shot at the bird and hit him, and 
killed him ; and as the augur and some 
others were angry and wished imprecations 
upon him, he ansAvered them thus : — ' Why 
are you so mad as to take this most unhap- 
py bird into your hands ? for how can this 
bird give us any true information concern- 
ing our march, who could not foresee how 
to save himself? for, had he been able to 
foreknow wliat was future, he would not 
have come to this place, but would have 
been afraid lest Mossollam the Jew should 
shoot at him and kill him.' " vol. 11. 489. 

This not only confirms the fact we are 
laboring to prove, but it is an interesting 
exhibition of the glorious doctrine of the 
Jewish Scripture, in contrast with the super- 
stition of heathenism, or of the developments 
of human reason left to its own guidance. 

But few remarks are necessary in con- 
clusion. The points intended to be proved 



CHAP. II.] 

are tlie antiquity of the Jewish Scriptures, 
and their genuineness, and these points, we 
think, have been Mly sustained. There are 
other quotations to the same effect which 
might be made, but the above are sul!icient. 
The fact that many of the works quoted by 
Josephus are not now to be found, does not 
destroy the argument, for they must have 
been extant at the time he wrote, and he 
must have quoted them correctly, otherwise 
he would have been exposed. He appealed 
to them as to books well known, which no 
man would have done had there been no 
such books. There are some slight varia- 
tions, in the orthography of some names 
as used by Josephus, and found in the 
Bible, but these do not destroy the identity 
of the narratives. Any one will recognize 
the Hiram of Josephus, as the Hiram of 
the Bible. Nabucodonosor of Berosus, as 
quoted by Josephus, will be recognized as 
the Nebuchadnezzar of the Bible, and so 
with the other variations. Thus is the genu- 
ineness of the Jewish history proved by the 
profane history of other nations. 

SECTION IV. 

Hie Genuineness of the New Testament. 

The genuineness of the Old Testament 
having been shown, it will not require an 
extended effort to settle the same question 
in relation to the New. Was there such 
a person as Jesus Christ ? Were there 
such persons as Matthew, Mark, Luke and 
John, who v\^rote the four Biographies of 
Christ, which bear their names, commonly 
called the four gospels ? AVere there such 
persons as Paul, Peter, James, John and 
Jude, who wrote the epistles which bear 
their names ? Did Luke write the history 
of the infant church, called the Acts of the 
Apostles ? Or was it written at the time it 
purports to have been, and does it contain 
a real history of actions and events that 
transpired as described ? If these questions 
be answered in the negative, then are the 
Scriptures of the New Testament fictitious ; 
'^ they be answered in the affirmative, then 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



19 



are they genuine. Now let us glance at 
the argument in the case. 

1. Their existence itself cannot be ration- 
ally accounted for, if their genuineness be 
denied. We call this the nineteenth cen- 
tury of the Christian era ; we call this year 
the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
dred and fifty, and this is the mode of com- 
puting time adopted by the most enlightened 
and refined nations on earth. If there was 
no such person as our Lord Jesus Christ, 
then has a fictitious name, the name of an 
imaginary being who never existed, save in 
the disordered or dishonest brain of some 
few unknown persons, who wrote fiction, 
nobody knows when nor where, impressed 
itself upon the very face of time, and upon 
the records and chronology of the most 
learned nations of the earth, so that Kings 
and Presidents, Senators and Legislators, 
and Judges, and wise men, and Philosophers, 
date their acts as performed in such a year 
of this fictitious nobody. Can any one be- 
lieve this ? If it be so, these few men who 
wrote the New Testament Scriptures, with- 
out disclosing to the world who they were, 
nor yet when nor where they wrote, were 
the most successful novel writers that ever 
wasted their brains on fiction. This is the 
real case presented on a denial that there 
was such a person as Jesus Christ, and such 
persons as the writers of the Four Gospels 
are represented to have been. There is not 
proof that Jesus Christ did not live and die 
as described, and that Matthew, Mark, 
Luke and John, did not write the Gospels 
attributed to them ; there can be no such 
proof, and until such proof is produced their 
very existence is an unanswerable argument 
in support of their genuineness. If there is 
any proof that the books of the New Testa- 
ment were written by other persons, and at 
other times than is claimed in their behalf, 
let such proof be produced. If it could be 
produced it would have been done before 
this ; the malignant hatred of the truth on 
the part of infidelity would not have let it 
slumbered in silence, and unknown, until the 
middle of the nineteenth century. 



20 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I, 



2. It must appear absolutely impossible 
for the Scriptures of the New Testament to 
have been forged and imposed upon the 
world at any period, and yet no trace left of 
the real men who did it, and the time when, 
and the place where it was done. At what 
period were the books of the New Testa- 
ment written, if not at the time supposed? 
When could they have been introduced and 
the attempt to deceive not have been ex- 
posed ? The antiquity of the Jews and 
their Scriptures has been established ; and 
they still survive with their Bible in their 
hands, the most determined opposers of the 
New Testament, as they ever have been 
They are scattered through every country 
where Christianity has spread, and have 
been ever since Jerusalem was destroyed by 
Titus the Eoman General, his father, Yes- 
pasian, having first commenced the sie 
retiring to Rome to assume the Government 
on the death of the preceding emperor. Why 
did not the Jews expose the forgery at the 
very time and place when these books were 
first produced, if they are not genuine, and 
if they are not really in fact connected with 
Jewish history as appears upon their face ? 
Why have not we some record of the cheat 
handed down from heathen opposers, who 
have in all ages, and in all countries, op- 
posed and persecuted Christianity where- 
ever it has poured its light upon their dark- 
ness, and exposed their superstition and cor 
ruption ? Why did not some Rationalist, 
some Free Thinker, some disciple of reason 
expose the forgery when the books first ap 
peared ? Were there no Rationalists, no 
Free Thinkers, and did reason never gain 
any disciples until since the light of revela- 
tion gleamed out this side of what is called 
the Reformation ? 

3. We rely not only upon the impossibili- 
ty that the books of the New Testament 
should have been written at any other time 
than that in which they claim to have been 
without meeting with an exposure, but it 
can be proved directly that they were writ- 
ten at about that time. 

Jesus Christ is said to have been born 



during the reign of Cassar Augustus. Luke 
ii. 1. Here is a historical fact which proves, 
beyond a doubt, that the book could not 
have been written before that fact existed. 
A writer perpetrating a forgery long after- 
wards, might have falsely laid this scene un- 
der the reign of Csesar Augustus, but it is 
not possible that real history should be an- 
ticipated by a fictitious writer. It is cleai- 
then, that the Gospels could not have been 
written before the reign of Csesar Augustus. 
So with the Acts of the Apostles ; this 
book must have been written during the 
reign of some one of the Caesars, for Paul is 
declared to have appealed to C^sar at Rome. 
Now the time of Caesar may be learned from 
Roman profane history. 

Again, Jesus Christ is said to have been 
crucified under Pontius Pilate. It is also 
declared to have been in the time of Herod, 
Governor of Galilee, who was at Jerusalem 
at the time. See Luke xxiii. 6, 8. Herod 
and Pilate are real characters, and their 
day may be determined by profane history. 
This proves that these books must have 
been written during or after the time of 
these men, for they could not have been 
written before, as their official career could 
not have been anticipated. 

So in the Acts of the Apostles, persons 
and places are referred to in a manner to 
determine the country and nearly the time 
of the transactions described. In chap. xii. 
1., Herod is named as a persecutor. This 
is not the Herod before mentioned, but was 
his nephew. In verse 21, he is described as 
dying a miserable death. This same fact, in 
its essential points, is described by Josephus. 
But the point proved is that the book must 
have been written after the death of Herod, 
as it could not have been anticipated. Tak- 
ing the Christian era, it being most common 
and best understood, and being guided by 
the best chronological tables, dates stand 
thus : Augustus Caesar, in whose time Christ 
is said to have been born, died A. D. 14, 
that is fourteen years after Christ is sup- 
posed to have been born. Pontius Pilate 
was deposed, banished and hung himself, A. 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



21 



D. 37. Seven or eight years after lie con- 
demned Christ to be crucified. Herod's 
terrible death took place A. J). 49. Yes- 
pasian was proclaimed emperor of Rome, 
A. D. 69, back of which the reign of all the 
Caesars must have transpired ; and, also, 
prior to this date the historical parts of the 
New Testament must elose, as the last thing 
recorded is Paul's journey to Eome, to 
prosecute his appeal to Caesar, and his 
preaching there two years " in his own 
hired house." The period occupied by the 
transactions recorded in the New Testa- 
ment, is now settled by dates gathered from 
profane history, and covers a space less than 
seventy years, commencing fourteen years 
prior to the death of Augustus Caesar. This 
is a shorter period than has elapsed since 
the declaration of American Independence. 
Could such a stupendous deception have 
been perpetrated in such an enlightened age 
and country, within the limits of such a 
period? It is impossible. These books 
must have been written within this period, 
for they profess, upon their face, to have 
been written by eye-witnesses and partici- 
pants in the transactions recorded. The 
conclusion must be irresistible, that the 
books of the New Testament are genuine, 
that there were such men as their reputed 
authors, and that they wrote the books at- 
tributed to them within the period so clear 
ly stamped upon their face. 

There is but one possible objection which 
Infidelity can urge against this view, which 
shall now be met. It is this : it may be 
said that the books were either written at 
the time the historical events with which 
they stand connected indicate, and concealed 
for ages, or were written ages afterwards, 
and exhibited as the record of a former 
period, that had been concealed. It may 
be urged that making their appearance ages 
after their apparent date, community had 
no means of contradicting them. This can- 
not be ; all the facts known in the case 
prove its impossibility. 

1. No one could have any motive to 
write them and cause them to be concealed 



that they might be found and imposed upon 
the world, hundreds of years afterwards, by 
some one in whom the writer could not have 
even anticipated any possible interest. 

2. The thing could not have been done with- 
out detection, the scheme requiring action 
and concealment at too many distant points. 
One epistle is directed to Rome, another to 
Corinth, another to Galatia, another to 
Ephesus, and another to Philippi, and 
another at Colosse, and another to individ- 
uals in various cities and countries, where 
they all must have been found, and from 
whence they must have been gathered to give 
the least plausibility to the deception. The 
deception could not have taken at the time 
without clear proof that they were found at 
these different points, and, if they were 
found thus, it could not have been the result 
of a plan laid some centuries previous for 
deceiving the world. 

3. The first and only account we have of 
these books is, they were in the hands of 
those who claimed to have received them 
from their authors and to have possessed 
them ever since. Infidelity cannot produce 
the slightest evidence that these books had 
any other origin, or that they were found 
under any other circumstances, 

4 We have accounts of the entire New 
Testament Canon too early to admit of the 
possibility of their having been published 
for the first time, too late after date to ad- 
mit of exposure if they were not genuine. 
They are quoted by writers of the second, 
third and fourth centuries. Origin gives 
the entire catalogue, A. D. 210, and Eusc- 
bius in 315. 

5. What must settle this question, is the 
early spread of Christianity, as confirmed by 
profane history. It must be presumed that 
the record of Christianity was contempo- 
raneous with its first general spread ; the 
life, death, resurrection and ascension of 
Christ being the rallying point, these must 
have been published as early and as wide 
as Christianity spread. That Christian 
Churches were planted throughout Asia 
and other parts of the Eastern world, traces 



22 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



of which remain to this day, cannot be de- 
nied. By whom, and when was it done, if 
the New Testament does not contain the 
record ? It has been shown that the New 
Testament record closes short of A. D. 70, 
but it is a historical fact, that Eome was 
set on fire, and that Nero laid it to the 
Christians as early as A. D. 64. The tem^ 
pie Avas standing at Jerusalem, during the 
period covered by the record of the New 
Testament, but that was destroyed by Ti' 
tus, A. D. 70. The Emperor Trajan, for 
bade Christian Assemblies, A. D. 98, so 
numerous and important had they become 
There were ten general persecutions waged 
against the Christians, during the first three 
hundred years, amid which, Christianity 
spead, and in 306, it had revolutionized 
the Eastern world, ascended the throne, and 
ruled the Eoman Empire, in the person of 
Constantino the Great. As the New Tes- 
tament record could not have been closed 
before about A. D. 60, it follows, that within 
two hundred and fifty years after the date 
of the books, Christianity overrun the Ro- 
man Empire. This. proves that the New 
Testament could not have been first brought 
to light, at a period so long after its date, as 
to render it impossible for its enemies among 
Jews and Gentiles, to expose the cheat. 
The conclusion is, that it is genuine. 

A few historical references, tending to sus- 
tain the genuineness of the New Testament, 
will close this branch of the argument. We 
will commence with Josephus, who was a 
Jew, and was born A. D. 37, and died A 
D. 93, and was present and took an active 
part in the war between the Jews and Ro- 
mans, which resulted in the destruction of 
Jerusalem, A. D. 70. He must have had 
personal knowledge of the movements of the 
Apostles, and of the early character and 
success of Christianity. In his antiquities. 
Book XVIII., Chapter 3, he says : " Now, 
there was about this time, Jesus, a wise 
man, if it be lawful to call him a man ; for 
he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher 
of such men as received the truth with plea- 
sure. He drew over to him, both many of 



the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He 
was (the) Christ. And when Pilate, at the 
suggestion of the principal men among us, 
had condemned him to the cross, those that 
loved him at the first did not forsake him ; 
for he appeared to them alive again the 
third day ; as the divine prophets had fore- 
told, these and ten thousand other wonder- 
ful things concerning him. And the tribe 
of Christians, so named from him are not 
extinct at this day." This surely is suffi- 
cient, so far as the testimony of one most 
creditable witness can go. 

Tacitus was a Latin author, and a great 
enemy of Christianity. He was born about 
A. D. 56. In his annals, book xv. Chap. 
44, he says, in speaking of Christians, " The 
author of that name or party was Christ, 
who was punished with death by the procu- 
rator, Pontius Pilate." 

Suetonius was another Latin author, who 
wrote about the commencement of the sec- 
ond century. In speaking of the acts of 
the emperor he says. " He expelled the 
Jews (or Christians whose origin was Judea,) 
from Rome, for their continual tumults, in- 
stigated by Christ."' 

Pliny flourished during the reign of Tra- 
jan, was governor of Bithenia, and is said 
to have checked tlie persecution against the 
Christians. He died, A. D, 113. He says 
book X. page 97 of the Christians, " They 
sing together, by turns, a hymn to Christ as 
to their God." 

We will close our argument in support of 
the genuineness of the New Testament by a 
brief appeal to the institutions of Christianity. 

1. Christian Baptism is a standing mon- 
ument of the antiquity and genuineness of 
the gospel. Wherever Christianity is found 
this ordinance is practiced, no account of 
the origin of which can be given, if it was 
not instituted by Christ. If it was not in- 
stituted by Christ, who first baptized " in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy-Ghost ;" and in v/hat age was 
it first practiced ? This no one can answer. 

2. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, is 
another monument of the life and death of 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



23 



Christ. This could never have been insti- 
tuted without leaving a record of its com- 
mencement ; but there is no record of its 
commencement, save that in the gospel which 
records it as the last act of Christ before 
he was crucified ; this therefore must have 
been its real origin. 

3. The Christian Sabbath is another 
proof. This is peculiar to Christians, and 
particularly distinguishes them from the 
Jews, who keep the seventh day. That it 
was really instituted in memory of the res- 
urrection of Chinst is the only rational ac- 
count that can be given of it. 

We trust it has now been sufficiently 
proved that the Scriptures of the Old and 
New Testaments are genuine, that they were 
written at the times, and by the persons as 
is represented upon their face. It is not 
claimed that their inspiration has yet been 
fully proved, though what has been proved 
has an important bearing on that question 
Having established the genuineness of the 
Scriptures, a foundation has been laid, upon 
which to stand while the question of their 
inspiration is argued. The fact that they 
were written by eye witnesses of the events 
and transactions they describe ; and pub 
lished during the life-time of many that 
helped to swell the astonished throngs that 
attended the personal ministry of Moses and 
of Christ, and saw the wonders they per- 
formed, cannot fail to render efiicient help in 
the argument in support of their inspira- 
tion. 

SECTION V, 

The Scriptures claim, upon their face, to be 
a Revelation from God. 

The writers of the sacred books claimed to 
be inspired, each for himself, and for those 
who had preceded. This is an important 
point, for when it shall be made plain that 
the Scriptures claim, upon their face, to be a 
revelation from God, communicated through 
the ^Titers by the Spirit of God, moving 
them to say and write the things they did, 
it will follow that they are thus inspired, or 



that they are the most corrupt volume to bo 
found, and are entitled to no credit whatever. 
If a book be false in its main designs, and 
in the leading and most important matters 
of which it treats, it is not to be relied upon 
in minor matters, or appealed to as authority 
to settle the facts and circumstances, which 
from the mere incidents that are appended 
to the great and leading falsehood of the 
volume. If then the Scriptures are not in- 
spired, they are false in their leading design 
and in their fundamental principles, and are 
not worthy of confidence as mere history ; 
for a historian who should be believed to 
have made up the fundamental parts of his 
work of willful falsehoods, would not be 
trusted for the truth of the unimportant 
circumstances which he might narrate as 
merely incidental to great falsehoods he 
should utter as the leading matters of his 
history. Those, therefore, who reject the 
inspiration of the Scriptures, and yet cling 
to them as a very good history, are utterly 
inconsistent. If the Scriptures are not in- 
spired, they contain more numerous aiid 
greater falsehoods than any other volume, 
and must have been written by persons more 
corrupt, dishonest, false, and more artful and 
malicious deceivers, than any other work 
that was ever written or read. We must 
then take them for what they profess to be, 
a revelation of the will of God, or reject 
them altogether. 

That the Scriptures do really claim to be 
a revelation from God, will not be denied by 
any one who has candidly read them. A 
brief view of the evidence on this point, 
however, may be in place. 

Gen. ix. 8. "And God spake unto Noah, 
and to his sons with him, saying, and I, be- 
hold I, establish my covenant with you and 
with your seed after you." 

Gen. xii. 1. "Now, the Lord had said 
unto Abram, get thee out of thy country, and 
from thy kindred, and from thy father's 
house, unto a land that I will show thee, 
and I will make of thee a great nation." 

Gen. XV. 1. " After these things the Wfrrd 
of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision." 



24 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES, 



[book I. 



Gen. XXV. 2. " And it came to pass, after 
the death of Abraham, that God blessed his 
sou Isaac." Chap. xxvi. 2. "And the Lord 
appeared unto him, and said, go not down 
into Egypt : dwell in the land which I shall 
tell thee of." 

Gen. xxxi. 11. " And the Lord said unto 
Jacob, return unto the land of thy father, 
and to thy kindred, and I will be with thee." 
Chap, xxxii. 1. " And Jacob went on his 
way, and the angel of God met him." 

Gen. xxxix. 2. " The Lord was with Jo- 
seph." 

Exo. iii. 14. " And God said unto Moses, 
I am that I am ; and he said, thus shalt 
thou say unto the children of Israel. I Am 
hath sent me unto you." Chap. xx. 1. 
" And God spake all these words." 

Isa. i. 1, 2. " The vision of Isaiah the son 
of Amos, which he saw concerning Judah 
and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jo- 
tham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, king of Judah. 
" Hear, heavens, and give ear, earth ; 
for the Lord hath spoken." 

Jer. i. 1, 2. " The words of Jeremiah the 
son of Hiikiah, to whom the word of the 
Lord came." 

EzG. i. 3. "The word of the Lord came ex- 
pressly unto Ezekiel the priest." 

■ Hosea i. 1. " The word of the Lord that 
came unto Hosea." 

It is not necessary to name each of the 
prophets, we will only add the testimony 
of the last of the prophets. 

Malachi iii. G. " I am the Lord, I change 
not ; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not con- 
sumed." Chap. iv. 4. " Eemember ye the 
law of Moses my servant which I command- 
ed unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with 
the statutes and judgments." 

To the above should be added the fact 
that the writers of the ISTew Testament claim 
that the writers of the Old Testament were 
inspired. The Old Testament is often quo- 
ted in the New as divine authority. To ad- 
duce all these texts is unnecessary, a few 
decisive passages will be sufficient. 

Matt. XV. 4. " God commanded, saying. 



honor thy father and mother." This refers 
to Exo. XX. 12, and xxi. 17, and clearly as- 
serts that God was the author of that law. 

Mark xii. 36. " For David himself said 
by the Holy Ghost. The Lord said unto 
my Lord, sit thou on my right hand." This 
is taken from the cxvi. Psalm, and the as- 
sertion is clear that David was inspired by 
the Holy Ghost. 

2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. " From a child thou 
hast known the holy Scriptures, which are 
able to make thee wise unto salvation, 
through faith that is in Christ Jesus. All 
Scripture is given by inspiration of God." 

Some have attempted to evade the force 
of this text on the ground that the verb is 
has been supplied by the translators, it not 
being in the original, but this avails them 
nothing. In this form it would read, ." All 
Scripture given by inspiration of God and 
profitable for doctrine." &c. This would 
leave the sentence unfinished, and something 
else would have to be added to obtain com- 
plete sense, while it would not destroy the 
endorsement of the Old Testament as divine- 
ly inspired, which it clearly contains. The 
object of the criticism is to render the text 
indefinite, by making it assert that all Scrip- 
ture that is given by inspiration of God is 
profitable for doctrine, without defining what 
writings are thus inspired and what are 
not. But this point is settled by the pre- 
ceding verse, " From a child, thou hast 
known the holy Scriptures." The definite 
article the in the expression, the holy Scrip- 
tures, necessarily points to some particular 
writings, known and understood as the holy 
writings, in contradistinction from all other 
writings. These were the Scriptures of the 
Old Testament. The Jewish canon had 
been completed centuries before this, in 
them it is clear that Timothy had been edu- 
cated from a child, and it is clearly these 
Scriptures which Paul endorses as given by 
inspiration of God ; and as he refers to them 
as a whole, without distinction of parts, the 
endorsement is of the whole. 

2 Peter i. 21. " For the prophecy came 
not in old time by the will of man ; but 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



25 



holy men of God spake as tliey were moved 
by the Holy Ghost." 

These Scriptures are sufficient to prove 
that the writers of the New Testament 
claim for the writers of the Old, that they 
were divinely inspired. 

There is one other question, which is, do 
the writers of the N ew Testament claim in- 
spiration for themselves? Whether they 
claim it or not, they clearly had the promise 
of it. 

John xiv. 26. " But the comforter, which 
is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will 
send in my name, he shall teach you all 
things, and bring all things to your remem- 
brance , whatsoever I have spoken unto you." 

This covers the whole ground of inspira- 
tion so far as the promise of it is concerned. 
But did the writers in any way assert 
that they possessed the Spirit of inspira- 
tion? 

In 1 Cor. vii. 6-10, Paul gives some di- 
rections on his own responsibility, and is 
careful to tell them that he does it " by per- 
mission and not of commandment ;" after 
which, in relation to other matters, he says , 
" I command, yet not I but the Lord." This 
is a clear assumption of the gift of inspira- 
tion, and the exception of a single remark, 
proves that the apostle claimed that the rest 
of his epistle was inspired^ 

1 Cor. xiv. 37. " If any man think him- 
self to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him 
acknowledge that the things that I write 
unto you are the commandments of the 
Lord." This is a direct and absolute claim 
to inspiration. 

Gal. i. 12. '• For I neither received it of 
" man, neither was I taught it, but by the 
revelation of Jesus Christ." This the apos- 
tle affirms of the Gospel which he preached. 

Chap. ii. 2. " And I went up by revela- 
tion and communicated unto them that Gos- 
pel which I preached among the Gentiles." 

Eph. iii. 2, 3. " If ye have heard of the 
dispensation of the grace of God which is 
given me to you ward ; how that by revela- 
tion he made known unto me the mystery ; 
as I wrote before in few words." 



1 Thes. iv. 2. " For ye know what com- 
mandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus." 

2 Thes. iii. 6 . " Now we command you 
brethren in the name of the Lord Jesus 
Christ." 

2 Peter iii. 15, 16. " And account that 
the long-suifering of the Lord is salvation ; 
even as our beloved brother Paul also, ac- 
cording to the grace given unto him, hath 
written unto you ; as also, in all his epistles, 
speaking in them of these things ; in which 
are somethings hard to be understood, which 
they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, 
as they do also the other Scriptures, unto 
their own destruction." 

Here Peter classes the writings of Paul 
with " the other Scriptures," and they it is 
known, all the Jews held to be inspired. 
Other texts might be quoted to prove that 
the New Testament writers claimed to be 
divinely inspired, but the above are suffi- 
cient. 

We do not claim to have proved by the 
above that the Scriptures are inspired, but 
only that they set up this claim for them- 
selves, so that it must be admitted that they 
are a revelation from God, or maintained 
that they are more false, corrupt, and decep- 
tive than any other book that was ever writ- 
ten, and are utterly unworthy of any confi- 
dence, even as mere history. They must be 
received or rejected as a whole. To pretend 
to pick out detached parts as truths, and to 
reject the balance as false, is absurd. This 
fact of their claim which they set up for 
themselves, to be a revelation from God, 
compelling us to admit their claim, or to de- 
nounce them as false, in their most essential 
principles and designs, has an important 
bearing on the investigation of their credi- 
bility, and on the examination of the evi- 
dence which must settle the question of their 
divinity. 

SECTION VI. 

The Credibility of the Writers of the Sacred 
Volume. 

Two points have been proved in preceding 
arguments, which have an important bear- 



26 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



ing on the subject, and which lay the foun- 
dation for the present argument. It has 
been proved, first, that the Scriptures are 
genuine, that is, that they were written in 
the age and country in which they claim to 
have been, and by the persons whose names 
they bear ; and secondly, it has been proved 
that these writers claimed to be inspired by 
God to communicate his will. 

The Scriptures must have been written 
by bad men or good men ; bad men would 
never have written and maintained such 
doctrines and precepts under such circum- 
stances, and good men would not have done 
it, only upon the supposition that they were 
really inspired, as they claimed to be. This 
argument, when properly elaborated, pos- 
sesses more force than all the cavils that 
Infidelity has ever been able to invent. 

I. Bad men would not have put forth and 
maintained such doctrines and precepts as 
constitute the substance of the Scriptures. 

1. The Scriptures contain the most sub- 
lime doctrines, and the most pure morality 
that are to be found treasured up in any 
volume that has yet been given to the world. 
Abating those volumes which have been 
/ written by authors who have believed and 
admired the Scriptures, and professedly 
drawn their truth and light therefrom, the 
Scriptures contain more admitted truths, 
and more clearly defined rules of pure 
morality, than can be found in all other 
books, and in all qther systems that 
were ever devised. Let the Deist who 
despises the Scriptures, undertake to pre- 
pare a doctrinal view of the existence of 
God and his attributes, and he will satisfy 
enlightened reason, only so far as he con- 
forms his theory to the teachings of the 
Scriptures on the same subject. To satisfy 
enlightened reason, he must present a God 
who is eternal, immutable, almighty, omni- 
present, alhvise, just and good, and this is 
the God of the Bible. A Deist cannot de- 
vise a system of morality that will claim the 
respect of enlightened reason, and benefit 
mankind, only so far as he incorporates 
therein the moral precepts of the Gospel of 



our Lord Jesus Christ. We challenge In- 
fidels to name one theological truth which 
they can clearly demonstrate from any and 
all the sources of truth, light and evidence 
afforded them by the visible and invisible 
universe, which is not clearly taught in the 
Scriptures. We challenge Infidels to name 
one duty, which clearly rises out of the re- 
lation which men sustain to each other as 
social beings, and which is not clearly taught 
in the Scriptures. We challenge Infidels 
to point to one volume, which does not pro- 
fessedly draw its matter from the Scriptures, 
containing as much of what they will admit 
to be religious truth, as is contained in the 
Scriptures. If, then, the Scriptures contain 
more religious truth, and a clearer and 
purer system of morality than can be found 
elsewhere, it must be absurd to suppose 
that they were written by wicked and de- 
ceiving men. Bad men, writing a book to 
deceive the world, would not put more of 
sublime truth, and pure morality in it, than 
all good and honest men that ever wrote, 
succeeded in getting into all other volumes. 
This is the conclusion to which we are driven, 
if we deny the inspiration of the Scriptures ; 
the greatest liars that ever lived, in the 
greatest lie they ever told, uttered more 
truth and pure morality than all the truth- 
loving and truth-telling autliors that ever 
wrote, have succeeded in getting into all 
their volumes. 

2. The writers of the Scriptures lived in 
accordance with the truths and morality 
they proclaimed. When they taught men 
to worship God, they worshipped God ; 
when they taught moral and social duties, 
they practised those duties ; when they taught*- 
self-denial, they practised self-denial them- 
selves ; and when they taught the duty of 
submitting to persecution, bonds, imprison- 
ment and death, for the sake of the truth, 
they were foremost to endm-e these things, 
and took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, 
and resigned their lives a willing sacrifice to 
sustain the truth they taught. There is an 
indispensabld necessity that the projectors 
of new theories should practise the doctrines 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCEIPTURES. 



27 



and duties they teach ; this is an essential 
element of success, without it no system can 
succeed in its commencement, unsupported 
by wealth and the civil power. Had not 
the Apostles and first Christians practised 
what they taught, they could not have suc- 
ceeded. This is an unanswerable objection 
to the supposition that bad men would ever 
originate and propagate such a system of 
self-denial and rigid morality, as the Uospel 
of Christ. If they were not inspired they 
must have been most deeply corrupt, and it 
is absurd to suppose that such vile seducers 
could, life-long, practice the most severe self- 
denial and austere virtue, merely to give coun- 
tenance to a falsehood, from the propagation 
of which they derived no earthly advantage. 
That they did practice what they taught is 
clear upon the face of the record, for there 
is here and there a single Instance of derelic- 
tion distinctly noted as exceptions, and as 
the only exceptions to the general rule. 
Their accusers and bitter persecutors never 
charged them with inconsistency, and a want 
of conformity in life to the system they 
taught, but rather the tenacity with which 
they practiced all the duties inculcated in 
the Gospel, refusing to accommodate them- 
selves to conflicting systems, and the popu- 
lar sentiment that prevailed around them 
was made a pretence to accuse them. Here, 
then, if We deny the inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures, are we driven upon the conclusion, 
that the most wicked of liars and adroit sin- 
ners, once practiced the most rigid virtue 
and pure morality, without any object, be- 
}-ond the mere gratification of deceiving 
others, not only without gain to themselves, 
but at great sacrifices of property, reputa- 
tion and personal ease. Such are the ab- 
surdities into which Infidelity rushes in its 
attempt to fly from the claims of the Scrip- 
tures. 

3. The circumstances of the labors, zeal , 
personal sacrifices and sufferings of the apos- 
tles and their coadjutors, establish their 
sincerity and prove abundantly that they 
were not bad men. Stronger proof of their 
sincerity could not be furnished than is seen 



in the openness of their testimony, never 
seeking to conceal, never affecting disguise 
or shunning investigation. They delivered 
their testimony before priests and magis- 
trates, kings and princes. They preached 
Jesus and the resurrection first at Jerusalem 
and in Judea, where their master lived and 
died ; and then they sought not next the se- 
cure retreat of ignorance to unfurl the ban- 
ner of the cross, but rushed upon the walls 
and into the market places of the most pop- 
ulous and enlightened cities of the world, 
and of design encountered the most inquisi- 
tive and keen eyed philosophers of their age, 
everywhere challenging an open examina- 
tion of the claims of Christianity. This is 
reconcilable only with their thorough con- 
viction of the truth of what they uttered 
The entire absence of selfish considerations 
leaves no spring of action for false and cor- 
rupt minds. Bad men never would act as 
they did without other personal considera- 
tions than any that can be found in their 
case. They, at all times, and in all places, 
showed to the world hearts infinitely above 
what is vulgarly called great and happy ; 
they ever exhibited a disposition infinitely 
remote from worldly ambition, free from the 
lust of gold, and a passion for popular ap- 
plause. They worked with their own hands 
for a scanty subsistence that they might not 
embarrass the truth they sought to propa- 
gate, showing in the faithful mirror of their 
own behavior, honesty, industry, deep piety 
towards God, unconquerable love for man- 
kind, the most sacred regard for truth, hu- 
mility, sincerity, and every divine, moral 
and social virtue that can adorn and exalt 
humanity. 

The toils they performed, the sufferings 
they endured, and the deaths they died, pro- 
claim that they were not bad men. They 
filled up their entire lives with toilsome ef- 
forts to propagate the gospel ; they endured 
all sorts of persecutions, submitted to bonds 
and imprisonment, and even death itself in 
its most dreadful forms, with a courage, forti- 
tude, serenity, and even exultation and tri- 
umph which nothing could have produced 



28 



THE INSPIRATION OP THE SCRIPTURES. 



but an honest heart, a firm belief in the 
truth of the Gospel, and a sure hope throu 
it, of a glorious resurrection and a better 
life beyond the grave. It is clear then that 
the Scriptures were not written by bad 
men. 

II. As the Scriptures were not written by 
bad men, they must have been written by 
good men. The argument by which it was 
proved that they were not written by bad 
men, proved at the same time that the writers 
were good men ; brighter and purer lives 
never shone amid the darkness of the world. 
But without argument, it must follow of ne- 
cessity, that if they were not wa-itten by bad 
men as has been proved, they were written by 
good men ; and if they were written by good 
men, they must have been inspired men, for 



[book I. 



exerting themselves to overthrow. It is 
clear that if the writers of the Scriptures 
were honestly deceived into a belief of what 
they wrote, there was no party to the de- 
ception but themselves, and the nature of 
the case does not admit of self-deception. 
They could not have been deceived into a 
behef of all they declared and wrote, with- 
out the action of another party, while the 
very supposition that the Scriptures are the 
result of an honest deception on the part of 
the writers, precluded the existence of such 
other party. Who deceived Abraham? 
Who deceived Moses ? Who deceived Isa- 
iah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the rest 
of the prophets ? Who deceived John the 
Baptist, the apostles, and Paul in particu- 
lar ? There was absolutely no party to do 



they asserted that they were inspired, and it ; the enemies of Christianity would not 
good men would not lie and deceive. This ^^ave deceived men into its belief and sup- 
renders the argument conclusive. It cannot port if they could, and the friends of Christi- 
be denied that if the Scriptures were not •'^i^ity are admitted by this objection to have 
given by inspiration of God, they contain been honest, and of course did not practice 



the greatest falsehood of which we can con- 
ceive, and have proved the source of a more 
general deception of mankind than any other 
book that was ever written, and that this 
great lie could have been contrived and told, 
and all this deception perpetrated by good 
men cannot be believed ; the conclusion is 
therefore irresistible that they are inspired 
as they were written by good men. 

There is but one plausible objection to 
this argument. It may be said that they 
were good men but deceived ; that they were 
honest dupes, rather than cunning knaves. 
This objection, though it possesses but little 
force, is worthy of a reply which it shall re- 
ceive. 

1. It involves the absurdity of a deceived 
party without a deceiver, of a duped party, 
without the practice of duplicity. If they 
were deceived, who deceived them ? There 
was no deceiver, there was no party con- 
cerned but the believers in the pretended 
revelation, and its enemies and opposers, and 
the enemies of the revelation could not and 
would not deceive the people into a belief 
and support of the very things they were 



deception. 

2. The facts are such as to preclude the 
possibility of their having been deceived. 
When it is urged that they were deceived, it 
is admitted that they were honest, and re- 
lated nothing only what they believed to be 
true. Look then at the state of facts pre- 
sented. Could Noah have been deceived in 
relation to the building of the ark, the de- 
struction of the world by water, and the 
preservation of himself and family ? Could 
Abraham have been deceived in relation to 
the principal events recorded in his life? 
Could Moses have been deceived when God 
spake to him from the burning bush, and when 
he wrought wonders in the presence of Pha- 
roah that confounded all Egypt ? Was Mo- 
ses, with all the hosts of Israel deceived at the 
Red Sea, when its waters opened to let them 
pass, and then returned and swallow^ed up 
their pursuing enemies ? Was Moses and 
all Israel deceived in supposing that they 
were led by a pillar of cloud by day and a 
pillar of fire by night ? Were they all de- 
ceived when they stood before mount Sinai, 
and saw it smoke, and saw the red Avin^-ed 



CHAP. 11.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



29 



lightnings play in sportive terror amid the 
gloom that mantled its frowning brow, and 
heard the voice of thunder that seemed to 
shake the world, and w^hen more terrific still 
fell on their startled ears, the fearful notes of 
Jehovah's trump, speaking from amid the 
thick darkness ? Come down to the New 
Testament, and could the shepherds have 
been deceived in whose ears angels sung the 
advent song? Could the wise men have 
been deceived when led by a star to the place 
where the infant lay ? Could all the mothers 
have been deceived who wept for their in- 
fants slain by Herod, in his attempt to de- 
stroy the prince of Israel ? Could John the 
Baptist have been deceived when he saw the 
Spirit descend, and heard the voice from 
heaven ? Could the apostles have been de- 
ceived when they distributed the loaves and 
fishes to the five thousand ; and could all the 
multitude have been deceived who ate and 
were filled ? Could Martha and Mary have 
been deceived in relation to the death and 
resurrection of their brother ? Could Peter, 
James and John, have been deceived when 
they saw their master .transfigured on the 
mount, and saw and heard Moses and Elias 
talking with him. Could the persecuting 
Jews, the executioners, the court, and all the 
disciples have been deceived together in 
relation to the fact of Christ's death ? and 
could all the apostles, who saw him and con- 
versed with him at different times, and five 
hundred living witnesses who saw him at 
once, have been deceived as to the fact of 
his resurrection. Could they have been de- 
ceived when they saw him, in the act of 
lifting up his hands and blessing, ascend up to 
heaven ? Could Paul have been deceived in 
the facts connected with his conversion? 
In a word, could all the apostles have been 
deceived, and all the people, in relation to 
the gift of the Holy Spirit, and all the mira- 
cles wrought by them in the name of Jesus 
Christ ? The thing is impossible. 

We come now to the conclusion of this 
argument, which may be briefly stated as 
follows : — 

1. It has been shown that the Scriptures 



were not and could not have been written 
by bad men, and consequently that they 
must have been written by good men. 

2. It has been shown that the Scriptures 
having been wTitten by good men, they must 
be inspired, for the writers affirm that they 
were inspired, and good men would not lie 
and deceive. To make this point clear, it 
has been proved that they could not have 
been deceived themselves, and hence, being 
good honest men, and not being deceived, 
what they affirm must be true, and the con- 
clusion is irresistible that the writers of the 
Scriptures were divinely inspired, and that 
the Scriptures are a revelation of the will 
of God. 

SECTION YII.^ 
The Evidence of Miracles. 

A miracle, in a Scriptural sense, is an ef- 
fect produced by the power of God, either 
with or without secondary agents, independ- 
ently of what are called the laws of nature, 
for the purpose of attesting the authority of 
some person or the truth of some doctrine. 

The possibility of miracles wrought by 
the power of God, can not be denied by any 
except Atheists. A Deist, who denies the 
inspiration of the Scriptures, but admits the 
existence of an intelligent and supreme Cre- 
ator, cannot deny the possibility of miracles, 
for a God who has produced the visible 
universe must be capable of working mira- 
cles at pleasure ; and He who is the author 
of what are called the laws of nature, must 
be capable of suspending them, and of oper- 
ating independently of them, or contrary to 
them. 

The proof which miracles furnish in sup- 
port of the inspiration of the Scriptures, 
arises from the fact of the settled laws of 
nature which produce uniformity of opera- 
tion. As the known laws of nature have 
been established by the Creator, they can 
never be departed from, controlled, or viola- 
ted, except by the Creator himself, acting 
directly, or acting through some secondary 
agent which he may empower — as a man or 



30 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



an angel. A few illustrations may serve to 
make this principle plain : It is contrary to 
the known laws of nature that a bush should 
burn without being consumed. Every one 
knows that it is in accordance with the 
fixed laws of nature, or the principles of 
natural philosophy, that in proportion to 
the amount of combustion or flame pro- 
duced, must be the waste or consumption of 
that from which it is produced ; hence when 
Moses saw the bush burn without being con- 
sumed, there was a clear miracle — the laws 
of nature were suspended, and the presence 
of God, who is the author of those laws, and 
who alone could suspend them, was certain. 
So it is contrary to the known laws of na- 
ture that a dried rod, in which even vegeta- 
ble life has become extinct, should be infused 
with animal life, and become a living ser- 
pent. When, therefore, the rod from the 
hand of Moses was transformed into a living 
serpent, from which he fled with terror, there 
was a miracle. So when Christ stilled the 
tempest, there was a clear counteracting of 
the known laws of nature. Suppose the wind 
might have ceased suddenly, in harmony 
with nature's laws ; it v/as contrary to the 
known laws of nature that the billows should 
have at once ceased to roll. The known 
law of force and resistance teaches us that 
when any body is set in motion, it must 
move until the momentum it has received is 
spent ; hence when Jesus said to the waves, 
"be still," and they obeyed and at once 
sunk to rest, presenting a smooth and tran- 
quil sm^face, there was a suspension of the 
laws of nature, and nature's God was clear- 
ly there — it was a miracle. The above cases 
are given as illustrations of the principle 
upon which miracles prove the inspiration 
of the Scriptures. When miracles transpire, 
God is proved to be the operative power ; 
and when they transpire in connection with 
and confirmatory of a law, doctrine, or sys- 
tem which claims to be a revelation from 
God, the argument is conclusive. 

There is but one more preliminary remark 
necessary before entering upon the exami- 
nation of the argmnent itself founded upon 



miracles. It is that tlie miracles recorded 
in the Scriptures were professedly wrought 
for the express purpose of establishing their - 
divine authority. Some of them occurred, 
apparently, in isolated circumstances, yet 
they confirmed the divinity of the religion in 
connection with which they were wrought, 
and they have been recorded, and the ac- 
count of them has been preserved for the 
confirmation of the whole Bible in which 
they are found. They appear scattered 
along the course of time for a period . of 
more than four thousand years, and are 
found in connection with every age and 
every dispensation, from the very opening of 
the volume of divine truth until it was fin- 
ished. Each communication which God 
made to men under the patriarchal dispen- 
sation, was itself a distinct miracle, and 
must have confirmed the truth of the com- 
munication made, Avhatever may have been 
the manner. We will at this point glanco 
at a few instances in proof that the miracles 
were wrought for the express purpose of at- 
testing the authority of some person, or the 
truth of some doctrine. The first instance 
of a miracle recorded after man was expelled 
from Eden, is in connection with the offer- 
ings of Cain and Abel, (Gen., iv. 3, 5) : 
" The Lord had respect unto Abel and his 
oflFering, but to Cain and his offering he had 
not respect." The apostle (Heb. xi. 4), 
comments upon this transaction, by saying 
that " by faith Abel oSered unto God a 
more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which 
he obtained witness that he was righteous, 
God testifying of his gifts." 

The respect which God had to Abel and 
to his offering was marked, distinct, and 
well understood by Abel, and by Cain also, 
unto whom with his offering God had not 
respect. This must have been a miracle, 
whatever the manner may have been in 
which God made known his respect ; and it 
answered the end of a miracle, by sealing 
the character and offering of Abel with the 
divine approbation, and condemning the 
character and offering of Cain, whose offer- 
ing appears not to have been presented iu j 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



31 



what the Scriptures call, faith. Thus in the 
first family of men was a distinction made 
between truth and error in religion — be- 
tween true religion, such as God approves, 
and false religion, such as God does not ap- 
prove. God, by a miracle, sealed the one 
with his approbation and the other with his 
disapprobation. 

From the first recorded miracle noticed 
above, they are interspersed through the 
entire history of the patriarchs, keeping 
alive that true religion which God sanction- 
ed in Abel, and presenting a pathway of 
light across those otherwise long, dark ages. 
Enoch walked with God, and obtained from 
God this testimony that he was righteous, 
and was finally translated that he should 
not see death, and was not found, for God 
took him. Here was a miracle, confirming 
the character and religion of Enoch, first to 
himself, and secondly to all who knew him. 

The history of Noah is but a history of 
a series of miracles, stamping his character 
and the doctrine he preached with the seal of 
heaven. The call of Abraham, with his entire 
history, with that of Isaac and Jacob, pre- 
sents a series of miracles which must have 
been sufficient to convince themselves and 
all with whom they associated, that they 
were under the special protection and guid- 
ance of divine Providence, and that the re- 
ligion in which they exercised themselves, 
was of God's own appointment. 

If we come down to the New Testament, 
and examine into the introduction of the 
Gospel and its early propagation, we shall 
find that it was attended by such miracles 
as could not have failed to convince the 
candid who were brought in contact with it, 
that it was divine in its origin, and bore the 
sanction of Him who rules the world. And 
that these miracles were wrought for the 
express purpose of confirming the truth, and 
stamping the Gospel with the seal of heaven, 
no candid mind can doubt, who carefully ex- 
amine the subject. 

Joseph and Mary must have known, to 
their entire satisfaction, that Christ was of 
divine origin. The parents of John the 



Baptist and their friends, must have known 
that he was an extraordinary character, 
and destined to act an important part in 
connection with religion. The series of 
miracles which attended his introduction 
into the world, must have convinced them of 
this. John himself must have understood 
the subject of his own message, for God 
gave him a sign, which was, that upon whom 
he should see the Spirit descend, the same 
was he that should baptize with the Holy 
Ghost. John did bear testimony that 
Christ was the Son of God. Then when 
Christ opened his own mission, it was with 
power and glory ; the blind received their 
sight, the lame walked, the lepers were 
cleansed, the deaf were made to hear, and 
the dead were restored to life. Christ ap- 
pealed to these proofs of the divinity of his 
mission, as especially designed to stamp it 
with the seal of heaven. After appealing 
to the testimony of John, he added, " But I 
have greater witness than that of John ; the 
works which the Father hath given mo to 
finish, the same works that I do, they bear 
witness of me." 

The apostles who accompanied Christ 
during his ministry, saw his miracles, at- 
tended his execution, witnessed his resurrec- 
tion, subsequently conversed with him, saw 
him ascend up into heaven, returned to 
Jerusalem and received the gift of the Holy 
Ghost, and were afterwards enabled to per- 
form similar miracles by the use of his name. 
— " In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, 
rise up and walk." The apostles, we say, 
under all this weight of proof, must have 
known the things whereof they affirmed 
when they preached the Gospel. And when 
we consider the concatenation of evidence 
arising out of the miracles that are recorded 
in confirmation of the Scriptures, we are not 
only satisfied that they were wrought for 
the purpose of confirming them, but that 
the admirable disposition of them, present- 
ing a chain extending from the opening 
page of the sacred volume to its close, gives 
evidence of the presence of a presiding and 
foreseeing intellect, beyond what is merely 



32 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



human, be it wicked or consecrated, and 
who does not see that that mind can be none 
other than God. 

We have now reached a point where the 
direct evidence of miracles will have its 
proper force ; but before we proceed, it is 
proper to recapitulate what has been proved, 
which has a decisive bearing upon the argu- 
ment about to be advanced. 

1. It has been proved that the Scriptures 
are genuine ; that they were written by their 
reputed authors, and that therefore the facts 
recorded as miracles, must have occurred, 
or the people at the time and place could 
not have been persuaded to believe them. 

2. An argument has been advanced in 
support of the credibility of the writers of the 
Scriptures, founded upon the facts that bad 
men would never write such a book, in such 
circumstances, and that good men would not 
do it, only upon the supposition that they 
believed what they wrote, and that the rela- 
tion the writers sustained to the reputed 
facts and miracles, was such as preclude the 
possibility of their having themselves been 
deceived. 

3. The nature of miracles has been ex- 
plained, and the principle upon which they 
prove the inspiration of the Scriptures, has 
been stated. 

The bearing of all this is just here ; the 
occurrence being proved to be real, and the 
nature and evidence of a true miracle having 
been explained, it remains only to prove 
that the occurrences come within the defini- 
tion of a miracle, and the argument will be 
conclusive. We repeat the definition of a 
miracle to render the argument perfectly 
clear upon its face. 

A miracle, in a Scriptural sense, is an 
effect produced .by the power of God, either 
with or without secondary agents, independ- 
ently of what are called the laws of nature, 
for the purpose of attesting the authority of 
some "person or the truth of some doctrine 

We are now prepared in the light of this 
definition to examine some of the leading 
occurrences claimed to be miracles. We 
will not go back to the patriarchal age and 



urge the translation of Enoch, the flood in 
the days of N oah, and the various manifesta- 
tions to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but 
commence with Moses, as with him it is be- 
lieved the recording of the sacred volume 
commenced. Passing by the early history 
of his eventful life, which was clearly a 
school of preparation for the part he was des- 
tined to act as a medium of communication 
between God and men, we find the exiled 
prince acting the part of a shepherd in the 
land of Midian, and as he led his flock to the 
back side of the desert, and approached 
mount Horeb, God appeared to him amid 
the solitude, and opened to him the mission 
upon which he was about to send him. (Exo. 
chap. iii. and iv.) This opening of the great 
drama, which ended in the establishment of 
the Jewish state and polity, assuming, as 
has been proved, that the persons and facts 
are real, clearly comes within our definition 
of a miracle, while there are clustering 
around it circumstances and incidents which 
give it all the force that can clothe any 
miracle. A few remarks only are necessary 
on this scene in the desert. 

1. The phenomenon of the burning bush 
which was not consumed amid the flame, 
and which was intended merely, thoroughly 
to arouse and fix the attention of Moses, 
was itself a miracle as has been shown 
above, involving the suspension of the laAVS 
of nature. 

2. The extreme modesty, and excessive 
caution of Moses on the occasion, adds 
great force to the argument, by precluding 
the supposition that he was led by a wild 
imagination, or deceived by some slight ap- 
pearance which might have been accounted 
for upon natural principles, into a mission 
to his people which had no existence save in 
his own dreams. When God spoke to him 
from the burning bush, and told him to 
go to his brethren in bondage and lead 
them out, he anticipated the incredulity of 
the children of Israel, and appeared dis- 
posed to decline even the mission of Jehovah, 
without being accompanied by such demon- 
strations as would not only render his own 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



33 



mind free from doubt, but also force convic- 
tion upon the minds of his countrymen, de- 
spite the frowns and terrors with which an 
oppressive government would attempt to 
counteract his efforts to redeem them. 

3. To satisfy his mind on this point, God 
gave him two other signs, in addition to the 
miraculous appearance in the burning bush, 
and the voice that spoke from amid the 
flame. His rod was transformed into a 
serpent, and his hand, on being put in 
his bosom and withdrawn, was leprous as 
snow, and on being again put in his bosom 
and withdrawn, it was restored as his other 
flesh. These occurrences were beyond or 
outside of the operations of the laws of 
physical nature, and being expressly de- 
signed, first, to meet and overcome the 
timidity of Moses, and secondly, to con- 
vince the children of Israel that God had 
really sent him, which they accomplished, 
they clearly stamp his mission with the im- 
press of divinity. 

Then followed the ten plagues which God 
by the hand of Moses sent upon Egypt. It 
is not necessary to examine each of these 
wonders in detail, but only to state the es- 
sential principles which are common to them 
all, and upon which the force of the argu- 
ment depends. 

1. They were all matters of public noto- 
riety, and of a character to aftect commu- 
nity generally, so as to rouse the deepest 
attention, and invite the most severe scru- 
tiny. They were all public calamities, and 
could not have passed as miracles for want 
of attention. 

2. They were all such in character as 
bruigs them within our definition of mira- 
cles, such as are not produced by the ordi- 
nary operation of nature's laws, such as the 
power of God alone can produce. They 
were ten in number. The rivers and streams 
were turned into blood ; frogs came up and 
covered the land and filled the houses ; lice 
were produced as the small dust of earth ; 
flies swarmed and filled the atmosphere ; 
murrain smote all the cattle of the country ; 
the people were smitten with boils ; hail 



and rain, lightning and thunder, mingled 
with fire, desolated the coast ; locusts de- 
voured every green thing that the hail had 
left ; darkness spread its gloomy mantle 
over the land for three days, so thick that 
it could be felt ; and finally, all the first 
born of Egypt were smitten by the destroy- 
ing angel, and died in one night. The num- 
ber of miracles which were produced in suc- 
cession, taken in connection with their ex- 
traordinary character, forbids the idea that 
they could have been spurious without being 
detected. Two circumstances prove beyond 
doubt that they could not have been natural 
occurrences. First, they were dependent 
upon the will of Moses, under God. He 
foretold them, at what hour they would oc- 
cur, and they were removed at his entreaty. 
Secondly, the Israelites living in the same 
neighborhood were not affected by them. 
These two circumstances preclude the sup- 
position that they proceed from any natural 
cause, and that they happened by mere ac- 
cident, so to transpire as to enable Moses 
to avail himself of them by a false pretense, 
to establish his authority. The only possi- 
ble method of invalidating them, is to deny 
them in toto, and this denial has already 
been met and shown to be untenable, while 
discussing the genuineness of the Scriptures. 
The ten plagues were of such a public char- 
acter, and so terrible in their nature, that, 
had they not transpired, every Egyptian 
and every Israelite would have had the 
means of contradicting them, and neither 
could have been deceived into a belief that 
such fearful events occurred among them, 
if no such thing took place. 

The next great event was the passing of 
the Red Sea, which was a stupendous mira- 
cle. On this it may be remarked, that the 
place is known where the Israelites past 
the Red Sea, and that no natural occurrence 
could have led to the phenomenon recorded. 

Moses calls the place where the Israelites 
encamped before the sea was divided, Piha- 
hiroth, which signifies " The mouth of the 
ridge," that is the opening in the chain of 
mountains- which stretch along the eastern 



34 



THE INSPIRATION OP THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I 



shore of the Ked Sea. Now, as we are as- 
sured by travelers that there is but one 
mouth or gap through which such a multi- 
tude of men, women and children, with their 
flocks and herds could pass, there can be no 
mistake as to the place. Near to this place 
or the Vv'cstcrn shore is a mountain called 
Attaka, which signifies deliverance. On the 
eastern coast opposite is a point of land 
called Kas Musa, or " the Cape of Moses." 
At these places the general name of the 
Gulf is Bar-al-kolsum, the Bay of submer- 
sion ;" and in this bay, there is a whirlpool 
called Birket Faraun, " the pool of Pha- 
raoh." These facts appear to settle the 
question concerning the place where the Is- 
raelites crossed the Ked Sea. At this place, 
the water is about eighty feet deep, and 
about twelve miles wide. For authority 
on these points, the reader is referred to 
Bruce's Travels. It must then have been a 
real miracle. But should it be contended 
that the wind which is declared to have 
blown all night was natural, and that this 
drove back the waters, the sufficient reply 
is, 

1. The thing is impossible, as a natural 
result of the blowing of any wind. The 
waters formed a wall on both sides, which 
could not have been the case if the wind 
drove them back. 

2. As the wind blew from the east, it 
must have blown across the sea, and in the 
face of the Israelites as they passed, and a 
wind strong enough to pile up and hold 
such walls of water, would have blown 
them all away with their flocks and herds. 

3. The sudden return of the waters when 
the Egyptians attempted to follow, shows 
that it was a miracle. 

4. The blowing of the east wind all night, 
was doubtless, not to divide the waters, 
which followed the lifting up of the Kod of 
Moses, but to dry the bottom after the wa- 
ters were divided, that the children of Israel 
might pass over dry shod, as they are said 
to have done. 

We will only add that nothing like this 
dividing of the waters ever occurred at any 



other time, which would be strange indeed, 
if it was the result of natural causes. To 
believe that it was the result of natural 
causes would require much greater credulity 
than to receive and believe it as a miracle 
produced by the power of God. 

The journey of the children of Israel 
from Egypt to the promised land, was one 
continued miracle, attended by a variety of 
incidental miracles, extended through a pe- 
riod of forty years. 

We appeal to the pillar of cloud by day 
and the pillar of fire by night, as one of the 
perpetual miracles during the journey. It 
is said Exo. xiii. 21, 22 : " And the Lord 
went before them by day in a pillar of a 
cloud to lead them the way ; and by night 
in a pillar of fire, to give them light, to go 
by day and night. He took not away the 
pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of 
fire by nigh''., from before the people." 

Again we read, chap. xl. 38. " For the 
cloud of the Lord was upon the tabernacle 
by day, and fire was upon it by night, in 
the sight of all the house of Israel, through- 
out all their journeys." 

This, if it existed at all, could be nothing 
but a miracle, and to suppose that it did 
not exist, would be to do violence to all 
just rules of evidence, as well as to our own 
common sense. The Jews believed it, as 
the whole history of the matter proves ; a 
history written at the time, and written by 
a man who died while the cloud was yet on 
the Tabernacle, and their descendants have 
all believed it ever since, and preserved this 
history with the greatest care, as a true 
record of facts. The record then must have 
been preserved by men who lived while the 
cloud by day and the fire by night was upon 
the Tabernacle, and by them it could not 
have been believed unless it was really so ; 
unless their eyes beheld it, not only once or 
twice merely, but for years, from manhood 
to old age, and from infancy to manhood. 
A generation passed away under its shadow 
by day and its light by night. The hosts 
of Israel that came out of Egypt, embracing 
old men. the middle aged, young men, youths 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



35 



and children, spent the rest of their days in 
fiight of it, and closed their eyes upon its 
light when they died, and their children who 
were born under it, upon tlie hour of whose 
first recollection it gleamed, in turn grew 
up to manhood in view of it, and under- 
stood well its history, and saw it for the last 
time at the end of their journey, when it 
lifted itself up from the Tabernacle and 
passed away. The history proves upon its 
face, that the generation among whom this 
miracle is said to have transpired, believed 
all this, and that their children all Ijelieved 
it after them ; and to suppose all this was 
believed under such circumstances, when no 
such thing transpired, requires vastly more 
credulity than to believe the record itself as 
a true narrative of what actually took place. 
We appeal to the falling of the manna 
upon which the Israelites subsisted, as an- 
other perpetual miracle during their forty 
year's journey. This is a matter in which 
they could not have been mistaken. We 
will distinctly note a few of the leading 
points in this stupendous miracle. 

1. The manna fell in such quantities as 
to sustain the vast multitudes of the Israe- 
lites. There must have been over a million 
of persons, and some learned men suppose 
there were over two millions, and others say 
three. There could have been no deception, 
and no mistake as to the source whence sup- 
plies were drawn to support such an army 
during a forty year's journey through the 
wilderness. 

2. The manna fell upon six days only, 
there being none found in the fields upon 
the Sabbath day. This proves it to have 
been a miracle, and not a natural produc- 
tion of the desert. 

3. When it was preserved over night it 
was found on the morrow to have tainted 
and produced worms, except upon the Sab- 
bath day, and upon this day it underwent 
no change. This proves the whole to be a 
miracle; 

4. It melted and vanished under the in- 
fluence of the sun, when left in the fields, 
and yet when gathered, it withstood the ac- 



tion of the fire in the process of being baked, 
and became so hard as to be beat in a mor- 
tar and ground in a mill. (Num. xi. 8), 
This also proves it to be a miracle. 

5. The manna continued to fall for the 
space of forty years, and ceased not until 
they eat of the corn of the land whither they 
journeyed, and then it fell no more. 

The record says, (Exo. xvi. 35.) " And 
the children of Israel did eat manna forty 
years, until they came to a land inhabited ; 
they did eat manna until they came unto 
the borders of the land of Canaan." 

Again it is said, (Josh. v. 12.) " And the 
manna ceased on the morrow after they had 
eaten of the old corn of the land ; neither 
had the children of Israel manna any more ; 
but they did eat of the fruit of the land 
of Canaan that year." 

The Israelites must have believed that 
they were fed with manna for forty years, 
and they taught it to their children after 
them, who believe it to this day ; the Jews 
in conversation with Christ, (John vi. 31,) 
appealed to the fact that their fathers " eat 
manna in the desert," in proof of the inspi- 
ration of Moses, and of the sincerity of their 
belief on this point, there cannot be a shadow 
of doubt. Nor can it be supposed that they 
could have been deceived into such a belief, 
that a million of persons journeying togeth- 
er, could by any trick, slight of hand or 
legerdemain, be deceived into a belief that 
they all subsisted for forty years on manna, 
which fell fresh from Heaven every night, 
and which they gathered, each for himself 
and family, every morning ; yet such is the 
absurd conclusion to which the Infidel 
must be driven, and such the insult which 
he must offer to his own common sense, 
when he denies the miracle by which God 
sent his people bread from Heaven. 

One more miracle shall close what we 
have to say of the miracles of the Old Testa- 
ment. We appeal to the miracle of smit- 
ing the rock in Horeb and producing water 
therefrom. This transaction is recorded in 
the seventeenth chapter of Exodus. Of this 
transaction the Psalmist says, (Ixxviii. 15, 



36 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



16.) " He clave the rocks in the wilderness, 
and gave them drink as out of the great 
depths. He brought streams also out of 
the rock, and caused waters to run down 
like rivers." Again, (verse 20.) " Behold 
he smote the rock, that the waters gushed 
out, and streams overflowed," Again, (Psal 
cv. 41.) " He opened the rock, and the 
waters gushed out, they ran in the dry place 
like a river." Upon this extraordinary 
transaction we remark : 

1. Accounts of travelers go far towards 
confirming the history of this miracle, inde- 
pendently of the credibility of the record 
The rock has been visited and described by 
Norden, Dr. Shaw and Dr. Pocock, who 
describe it as a vast block of red granite, 
fifteen feet long, ten broad, and twelve high. 
Dr. Shaw says, '■' the waters tho^t gushed out, 
and the stream that flowed withal, have hol- 
lowed across one corner of this rock, a chan- 
nel about two inches deep and twenty wide, 
all over incrusted like the inside of a tea-ket- 
tle that has been long used. Besides several 
mossy productions that are preserved by the 
dew, we see all over this channel a great 
number of holes, some of them four or five 
inches deep, and one or two in diameter, the 
lively and demonstrative tokens of there 
having been formerly so many fountains 
Neither art or chance could be concerned in 
the contrivance." Dr. Clarke, after refer- 
ring to the above named travelers, adds : — 
" My nephew who visited the rock in 1823 
confirms the account of the preceding trav- 
elers." Here, then, there is a rock near to 
Horeb from which water once flowed, from 
the undoubted marks it has left, a place 
where there is now no water, and where none 
ever could have been produced by the sim- 
ple laws of nature. 

2. The water must have been produced 
in great abundance to have supplied such a 
multitude of people with their flocks and 
herds. It must have run in streams, as de- 
scribed by the Psalmist. It must also have 
continued to flow for a long time. We can 
not say how long, but at least so long as 
they remained in that neighborhood, which 



appears to have been more than a year. 
Some, however, are of the opinion, that the 
water continued to flow, and that its streams 
followed the Israelites in their wanderings. 
The language of Paul, (1 Cor. x. 4,) appears 
to intimate this. But the force of the mir- 
acle does not depend upon this doubtful 
question. The fact that Moses smote the 
rock and that the waters gushed out is re- 
corded, and the rock is there, bearing aU 
the marks that would naturally result from 
the miracle described. The multitude who 
are said to have drank of the water, beyond 
all doubt, believed they did drink, and their 
descendants believe it to this day, and have 
preserved the record with the greatest care. 
There could have been no deception, the 
people could not have been made to believe 
that any such thing transpired, had they 
not seen and drank of the water ; and if 
they did see it and drink of the water, the 
miracle must have been real, for water for 
so many people with their flocks and herds, 
could not have been brought from a rock, 
or from any other source, by any deception 
or legerdemain, so as to conceal its fountain, 
and palm the abundant stream off as a mi- 
raculous production. We have now done 
with the miracles of the Old Testament, for 
though there are others, the examination of 
the preceding is sufficient. 

It remains to examine some of the leading 
miracles of the New Testament, and this 
argument will be finished. Of course, but 
few need be noticed of the many that were 
wrought by Christ and his Apostles. They 
are too numerous to mention in detail. 
Take a few for examples. In the eighth 
chapter of Matthew, we have six distinct 
miracles, and one of them is in general 
terms, comprehending many miracles. 

1. As he came down from the mountain 
after preaching his wonderful sermon, a leper 
met him, and he put forth his hand and 
healed him. Yerse 3. 

2. Next came a centurion and besought 
him in behalf of his servant, and by hia 
word he healed him. Yerse 13. 

3. Next arriving at the residence of Peter, 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



37 



he found his wife's mother sick of a fever, 
and he touched her hand and the fever left her. 

4. When the evening was come, they 
brought unto him many that were possessed 
with devils ; and he cast out the spirits with 
his word, and healed all that were sick. 
Yerse 16. 

Here were many miracles wrought as is 
clear from the expression, " and healed all 
that were sick," 

5. From thence he entered into a ship, 
and there arose a great tempest, and he re- 
buked the winds and the sea, and produced 
a great calm. Yerse 26. 

6. On his arrival upon the other side he 
healed the man that dwelt among the 
tombs. 

The apostle John concludes his gospel 
thus : " And there are also many other 
things which Jesus did, and which, if they 
should be written every one, I suppose the 
world itself could not contain the books that 
should be written." The idea here com- 
municated, is that a very small portion of 
the acts and miracles of Christ are recorded. 
These miracles, were so numerous, and were 
wrought on such public occasions, and ex- 
tending as they did through a period of 
three or four years, it is clear upon the very 
face of the record that there could have 
been no deception in the case. 

But we will pay particular attention to 
some few of them, and will select the case of 
the man who lay at the pool of Bethesda, 
recorded in the fifth chapter of John. On 
this miracle it may be remarked : 

1. The subject had been diseased for 
thirty-eight years. 

2. He was so infirm as to be nearly help- 
less. He is called the " impotent man," and 
he speaks of having no one to help him into 
the water when it was troubled. 

3. He having been there so long, there 
could have been no chance for deception, as 
to his identity, the facts of his disease, or 
his cure. The performance was public, and 
the direction given him to take up his bed 
and walk, had a direct tendency to call at- 
tention to the matter, and it did arrest the 



attention of the Jews, and led to investiga. 
tion. 

4. The Jews who persecuted Jesus, did 
not deny the miracle, but grounded their 
charge on the fact that it had been per- 
formed on the Sabbath day. These circum- 
stances taken together make a strong case, 
and as the record has already been proved 
genuine, the reality of the miracle must fol- 
low, for it could not have been a mere preten- 
sion without being detected and exposed. 

The miracle of feeding five thousand per- 
sons with five loaves and two small fishes, 
such as a lad could carry in his basket, as 
recorded in the sixth chapter of John, was a 
transaction about which there could have 
been no deception or mistake. 

1. There were five thousand, all of whom 
partook and were satisfied. This was too 
large a number to be supplied from some 
secret source in a desert place, without de- 
tection. 

2. The miracle had its immediate effect 
by producing an acknowledgment th{it he 
was the prophet that should come into the 
world. 

3. When Jesus afterwards charged upon 
them, that they sought him not because they 
saw the miracle, but because they did eat of 
the loaves and were filled, they were offended, 
and though they went away they did not 
deny the fact of the miracle. Such a trans- 
action could not have transpired with all its 
incidents, and have been believed, and a re- 
cord of it published during the same gener- 
ation, without being detected and exposed, 
had it been a mere pretense. 

The resurrection of Lazarus is another 
miracle of such notorious character, as to 
preclude ail possibility of deception. 

1. Lazarus was dead and buried, and had 
been in his grave four days, so that decom- 
position had really commenced, as Martha 
suggested when Christ ordered the stone to 
be removed. 

2. The resurrection of Lazarus was clear 
and beyond contradiction. The sisters be- 
lieved it. Many of the Jews believed on 
Jesus for the first time in consequence of it. 



38 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



Others of the Jews went and reported the 
facts to the Pharisees, upon which they held 
a council, in which they admitted the fact of 
the miracle, and because it was real and 
not because is was fiction, they resolved to 
put Christ to death. And finally, they 
sought to kill Lazarus because many of the 
Jews were led by him to believe in Christ. 
Now admitting the genuineness of the re- 
cord, which has been proved, that there was 
such a person as Christ, such a person as 
Lazarus, and his two sisters, such persons 
as the Pharisees, with such a high priest as 
Caiaphas at their head, and that there was 
such a man as John who wrote the gospel 
which bears his name, and who can doubt 
that this miracle here recorded, was actually 
performed? If the miracle had not been 
performed, the cheat would have been ex- 
posed, and the record could not have been 
believed and handed down only as it should 
have been transmitted upon the page of the 
history which should have contained an ac 
count of the cheat and its exposure. But 
we have the record unimpeached, nor 
there any other record denying the facts 
alleged, or pretending to expose them as 
unreal. 

The miracle of Christ's resurrection is the 
crowning event in his history, and if ad 
mitted, must establish the whole gospel sys- 
tem. Let us, then, examine the facts in the 
case, and see if there is sufficient proof to 
establish the fact of this grand triumph of 
the Crucified. A series of facts and cir- 
cumstances conspire to render the resurrec- 
tion of Christ certain, beyond the power of 
successful contradiction, or reasonable doubt. 

1. He was really dead. He was cruci- 
fied as a malefactor, with other criminals, 
and the execution was public, and under 
the eye of his worst enemies who had sought 
and procured his death. It cannot be sup- 
posed that the Jews who had pursued him 
with such murderous hate, and clamored 
so loudly for his blood, at Pilate's bar, 
would fail to see the sentence fully exec- 
cuted, when they had him in their power. 
Moreover, his death was attested in the 



most minute and official manner. Frst, we 
have the testimony of the executioners that 
he was dead. It was not lawful with the 
Jews that the victims should remain on the 
cross over the Sabbath, and hence, they 
procured an order from Pilate to dispatch 
them by breaking their legs, that they might 
be taken down ; so the soldiers in obedience 
to this order, came and broke the legs of 
the other two malefactors, and when they 
came to him, and found that he was already 
dead they broke not his legs, (John xix. 
31-34.) In the second place we have the 
testimony of the centurion, officially com- 
municated to Pilate. Joseph, an honora- 
ble counsellor, went to Pilate and craved 
the body of Christ, " Pilate marvelled if he 
were already dead ; and calling unto him, 
the centurion, he asked him whether he had 
been any while dead. And when he knew 
it of the centurion, he gave the body to 
Joseph." (Mark, xv. 43-45.) Here, then, 
it is clear that Pilate declined giving the 
body to Joseph, until he had official evi- 
dence that he was dead. 

2. Every circumstance conspired to put 
the Jews upon their guard against deception 
in relation to the pretended resurrection. 
Christ had over and over again predicted 
that he should rise again on the third day, 
and the Jews knew it, and acted in view of 
it. Of this we have a plain and simple 
history in the following words : — " Now the 
next day that followed the day of the prepa- 
ration, the chief priests and Pharisees came 
together unto Pilate. Saying, sir, we re- 
member that that deceiver said, while he 
was yet alive, after three days I will rise 
again. Command, therefore, that the sep- 
ulchre be made sure until after the third 
day, lest his disciples come by night, and 
steal him away, and say unto the people, he 
is risen from the dead ; so the last error 
shall be worse than the first. Pilate said 
unto them, ye have a watch ; go your way, 
make it as sure as ye can. So they went 
and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the 
stone, and setting a watch." Mathewxxvii. 
62-66. 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OP THE SCRIPTURES. 



39 



From all this it appears that their minds | 
were awake to the danger of a pretended 
resurrection, and that they used every pre- 
caution to guard against it, and had the 
power of the Eoman Government to assist 
them in protecting themselves against the 
deception they feared. They sealed the 
stone at the door of the sepulchre with the 
government seal, and placed a watch to 
guard it. All was done that could be done 
to prevent any deception. 

3. Under all these circumstances the res- 
urrection took place, furnishing ample means 
of detecting the deception if it had not been 
real. We have now got the argument nar- 
rowed down to a single point, viz., did he 
rise from the dead or did his disciples steal 
him away while the guard slept? Both 
parties agree that the body was not there, 
that it had been removed in some way. His 
friends asserted that he had risen from the 
dead, while the Jews reported that his 
disciples stole him away while the guard 
slept upon their posts. These are the only 
two suppositions, for no other story was 
ever told, and no other method resorted to 
of accounting for the disappearance of his 
body. 

Now let us examine these two methods of 
accounting for an admitted fact, that the 
body was not there, and could not be found. 
We will take the Jewish side of the question 
first, and see if it be possible to believe that 
the disciples stole him away. 

1. They had no motive to practice such 
a deception. They made neither wealth, 
ease, nor honor out of the story. The only 
interest they could have in the matter de- 
pended upon the fact that he did rise, and 
not upon the fact that they could by false 
pretense make many believe that he had 
risen. The belief that he had risen, which 
they induced, under the circumstances could 
do them no good, so long as it was not true. 
By reporting and adhering to the story that 
Christ rose from the dead, they secured no- 
thing to themselves but a life of toil with- 
out compensation, bitter persecution and a 
cruel death. If they told a lie it was one 



of the most unprofitable ones that man ever 
told. 

2. They were not persons who would be 
likely to perpetrate such a bold crime, 
had they possessed the motive to move 
them to it. They were few, poor, unlearned, 
and timid. They appeared to have gener- 
ally fled and left him when he was arrested ; 
and Peter, who followed him, trembled un- 
der the eye and voice of a servant girl, when 
she simply charged him as being one of his 
disciples. Such men would not be likely to 
undertake the daring enterprise of breaking 
through the seal of public authority, under 
the protection of a Eoman guard armed to 
the teeth. The probabilities of success were 
fearfully against them, had they undertaken 
it. They could not expect to find Roman 
soldiers asleep upon their posts, and if they 
did, the difficulty of removing so large a 
stone from the door, and bearing away the 
body without waking them, would be too 
great to be encountered by such men. They 
could only expect to succeed by overcoming 
the guard in a fight, and success in that 
way would have been defeat itself. The 
slain among the soldiers, and the wounds of 
the living would have told who stole him 
away, and defeated the whole object of the 
enterprise. 

3. Had it been true that they stole him 
away, the difficulties of concealing him 
would have been too great to have allowed 
them to escape without detection. Suppose 
it to have been a fact that they stole away 
his body, and that the Jews really believed 
it, their interest in the matter, and their 
malignity, would have led them to have 
searched everywhere for the stolen corpse ; 
every pond would have been dragged, and 
every new-made grave would have been 
opened, and every possible place of conceal- 
ment would have been searched. 

4. The only story that was put in circu- 
lation on the subject, contradicted itself. 
The soldiers are made to say that his disciples 
stole him away, while they were asleep. 
First, it is not to be believed that they did 
sleep, for this was a crime punishable with 



40 



THE INSPIRATION OP THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



death by the Roman law. Secondly, if they 
did actually sleep, they could not have 
known that his disciples stole him away. If 
they were asleep, how could they know who 
took him away ? If they were not asleep 
why did they suffer him to be taken away ? 
Such testimony would be ruled out of any 
court. But what renders it perfectly clear 
that there was no proof that his disciples 
stole him away, is the fact that the Jews 
never availed themselves of it, in their sub- 
sequent controversies with them. The 
apostles were several times arrested and 
brought before the rulers of the Jews in 
Jerusalem, within a short time after the 
resiu'rection of Christ. See Acts, Chap. iv. 
1,2; and Chap. v. 29, 32. In these con- 
troversies, the apostles, while under arrest, 
boldly affirmed that God raised Christ from 
the dead, and actually silenced the Jews. 
Now, had they possessed the least proof 
that his disciples stole him away, they 
would have produced it on these occasions. 
If these soldiers were competent witnesses 
in the case they would have availed them- 
selves of their testimony. 

Now look at the proof on the other side 
of the question, and see how triumphantly 
it establishes the fact of Christ's resurrec- 
tion. 

1. The apostles asserted it as a truth, 
that they saw him, conversed with him, and 
handled him. About sixteen years after 
the resurrection of Christ, Paul wrote his 
first epistle to the Corinthians, in which he 
suras up the personal evidence of that great 
event as follows : — " And that he was 
buried, and that he arose again the third 
day according to the Scriptures. And that 
he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. 
After that he was seen of above five hun- 
dred brethren at once ; of whom the great- 
er part remain unto this present, but some 
are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen 
of James ; then of all the apostles. And 
last of all he was seen of me also, as one 
born out of due time." (1. Cor. xv. 4-8.) 

Here are six distinct occasions on which 
Jesus showed himself alive, and on one oc- 



casion he was seen by more than five hun- 
dred persons, most of whom were still living, 
to testify if required. No fact was ever 
confirmed by a stronger array of living eye- 
witnesses, and had not these things been so, 
the apostle would not have dared to have 
written as he did, and appealed to living 
witnesses. 

2. The testimony of the apostles was con- 
firmed by the gift of the Holy Ghost, the 
gift of tongues, and the power to work mira- 
cles. This appears upon the face of the 
record, and the result that followed, the 
conversion of the people by thousands, shows 
that it was with supernatural influence that 
they witnessed to the resurrection of Christ. 

3. The change that so suddenly came 
over the apostles, proves that they believed 
their own testimony, when they asserted 
that Christ was raised from the dead. The 
doubting timid ones, who wept from sorrow 
and trembled with fear when their master 
was taken away, became strong and fear- 
less, and bore their testimony in the teeth of 
the Jews who had caused him to be cruci- 
fied, and before courts and kings, and walk- 
ed unalarmed amid persecutions, prisons, 
and death. 

SECTION VIII. 

Objections to the Evidence of Miracles 
Answered. 

It will not be necessary to extend our de- 
fense of miracles against objectors to any 
considerable length, after what has been 
said in the preceding section. If the argu- 
ments which have been advanced be sound, 
no objection can prevail against the evidence 
of miracles, and if they are not sound, no re- 
ply to objections can make them sound. 
There are a few objections, however, which 
are so notorious, made so prominent by 
sceptics, that it is proper to notice them. 
The first to which we will direct the read- 
er's attention, is that urged by that philoso- 
phical and popular Infidel WTiter, David 
Hume. 

We believe it is admitted by all, Chris- 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OP THE SCRIPTUEES. 



41 



tians and Infidels, that Mr. Hume has made 
the best of the Infidel side of the question in 
opposition to the evidence of miracles, that 
has been done by any anti-christian writer. 
It may appear proper, therefore, to notice 
briefly his strong points. The following is 
the substance of liis argument. 

" Experience is our only guide in reason- 
ing concerning matters of fact. Experience 
is in some tilings variable, in some things 
uniform. A variable experience gives rise 
only to probability ; a uniform experience 
amounts to proof. Probability always sup- 
poses an opposition of experiments and ob- 
servation, where the one side is found to over 
balance the other, and to produce a degree 
of evidence proportioned to the superiority. 
Our belief or assurance of any fact from the 
report of eye-witnesses, is derived from no 
other principle than experience ; that is, our 
observation of the veracity of human testi- 
mony, and of the usual conformity of facts 
to the reports of witnesses. Now, if the 
fact attested partakes of the marvellous, if 
it is such as has seldom fallen under our ob- 
servation, there is a contest of opposite expe- 
rience, of which the one destroys the other, 
as far as its force goes, and the superior can 
only operate on the mind by the force 
which remains. Further, if the fact affirm- 
ed by the witness, instead of being only 
marvellous, is really miraculous ; if, besides 
the testimony considered apart and in itself 
amounts to an entire proof; in that case 
there is proof against proof, of which the 
strongest must prevail, but still with a 
diminution of its force in proportion, to that 
of its antagonist. A miracile is a violation 
of the laws of nature ; and as a firm and un- 
alterable experience has established these 
laws, a proof against a miracle from the 
very nature of the fact, is as entire as any 
argument from experience can possibly be 
imagined. A miracle, therefore, however 
attested, can never be rendered credible 
even to the lowest degree." 

In reply to the above; which presents the 
strongest objection to the evidence of mira- 
cles which Infidelity lias ever yet been able 



to devise, we present the following consider- 
ations : — 

The argument of Mr. Hume is based upon 
two false assumptions, viz., that the fact that 
no miracles occur in our experience is proof 
that none occurred in the experience of the 
sacred writers ; and that experience is our 
only guide in reasoning concerning matters 
of faith. Both these positions are false, and 
shall be proved so in the course of this reply. 

1. It is not merely an objection against the 
evidence of the miracles, said in the Scrip- 
tures to have been wrought for their confir- 
mation, but against the possibility of the 
existence of such evidence, it affirms, not 
so much that there is no satisfactory proof 
that such miracles were wrought, as that 
no such proof could exist in any possi- 
ble case. This is stretching the argument 
beyond its power to produce the least con- 
viction, inasmuch as at this point it arrays 
itself against all the evidence of experience, 
and the dictates of reason and common 
sense. If it be true, that " a miracle how- 
ever attested can never be rendered credible 
even to the lowest degree," then is Omnipo- 
tence set at defiance by the argument, and 
G-od himself is rendered incapable of so at- 
testing a revelation of his own will, as to 
render it " credible in the least degree," 
with those w^ho were not eye and ear wit- 
nesses of the communication. It is an 
insult to our own reason and common sense 
to deny the possibility of miracles, (lod 
who created the visible universe, produced 
the elements, the solid ground, the water, 
and the air, the sun, and moon, and stars, 
and who gave to nature her laws, must be 
capable of suspending those laws, and of 
operating independently of them or contrary 
to them ; that is, he must be capable of 
working a miracle. A miracle then is just 
as possible in itself, as a shower of rain, a 
drouth, a tempest, or a calm; there is 
therefore nothing more strange in itself, in a 
miracle, than in what our eyes witness every 
day ; for it must be just as easy for an Al- 
mighty Creator to produce what we call a 
miracle, as to produce the original elements of 



42 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



the visible creation, and impress upon tliem a 
law which at one time sends the fertilizing 
shower, and at another, witliholds the de- 
sired drops from the thirsty soil and droop- 
ing plants ; which at one time stirs up the 
wind, and rouses the tempest, and rocks the 
waters of the deep, and at another time re- 
strains the winds, hushes the tempest into a 
breathless calm, and lulls the billow to sleep 
upon the bosom of its mother ocean. In- 
deed there is nothing more unreasonable in 
itself, no approach to impossibility, in the 
idea of a miracle than in the production of 
a simple spire of grass, the blush of a single 
flower, the motion of the summer zephyr 
or the sultry calm under the influence of 
which we pant for its cooling breath. As 
there is then nothing impossible or unrea- 
sonable in the idea of a miracle, the pre- 
sumption is in their favor, whenever circum- 
stances should appear to demand them, or 
whenever they appear adapted to secure an 
end which cannot so well be secured by ordi- 
nary means. Now, it has been proved that 
a revelation from God is desirable, and that 
it is reasonable to expect such a revelalion, 
from the admitted perfections of God, and 
its adaptation to meet the wants of his ra- 
tional offspring, man ; and we now add that 
such a revelation of necessity needs confir- 
mation, and that miracles, though not the 
only attestation, are exceedingly appropri- 
ate and most conclusive, and are therefore 
to be looked for whenever God makes any 
direct communication to men. We repeat, 
therefore, that all the force of presumption 
is in favor of miracles in connection with a 
revelation from God, and as the whole force 
of the objection rests upon a supposed pre- 
sumption against them, the argument falls 
of its own weight. That is, it makes the 
force of presumption the ruling point in the 
nature of evidence, and as the force of pre- 
sumption is in favor of miracles, the objec- 
tion is overthrown by the very principle 
upon which it is made to depend. 

2. So far as the objection is made to de- 
pend, not upon a supposed impossibility of 
mu-acles, but upon the impossibility of at- 



testing them, so as to render the testimony 
credible, which affirms them to have 
been wrought, it is equally weak and self- 
destructive. It may be said that the ob- 
jection is not that miracles would not suffi- 
ciently attest a revelation from God, if the 
miracles themselves could be sufficiently at- 
tested, but it rests upon a denial that mira- 
cles can be so attested by human testimony, 
as even to render it probable with those who 
do not witness them that they were wrought. 
Let us then finish the objection by meeting 
it in this its strongest point of light. 

Why, then, cannot miracles be proved by 
human testimony, as conclusively as any 
other matter of fact? The objection an- 
swers for itself. "Experience is our only 
guide in reasoning, concerning matters of 
fact." The application of this is, as we 
never witnessed a miracle ourselves, the 
whole of our experi'ence is against the prob- 
ability of the existence of miracles, while ou 
the subject of human testimony, our experi- 
ence is that it is sometimes true and some- 
times false. Now as the whole of our ex- 
perience is against the occurrence of mira- 
cles, having never experienced one, and as 
our experience on the subject of human 
testimony is variable, part in favor of its 
veracity, and part against it, our entire ex- 
perience against miracles, outweighs our 
partial experience in favor of the verac- 
ity of human testimony, and the presump- 
tion is that no miracles occurred, however 
positively they may be attested by persons 
claiming to have witnessed them. This is 
the strongest view of the argument, and yet 
it is so weak as only to expose- the weak- 
ness of Infidelity, which it is designed to 
support. The whole is based upon a false 
assumption, that the fact that we never 
witnessed or experienced a miracle, is proof 
that no miracles ever occurred, and not only 
proof, but proof strong enough to counter- 
balance the strongest possible human testi- 
mony. The truth is, that we have no ex- 
perience on the subject, because we never 
received a revelation direct from God, nor 
were we ever present when a revelation was 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



43 



directly communicated to others, and there- 
fore were never in a position to experience 
miracles as attestations of the truth of 
revelation. We have proved above, that 
miracles are possible, that they are proba- 
ble, that it is reasonable to expect them in 
connection with a revelation from God, as the 
most appropriate and conclusive attestation, 
hence the whole force of probability is in 
favor of the occurrence of miracles, whereas 
the objection rests upon the assumption of 
their improbability. This assumed improb- 
ability is made to depend upon the fact that 
miracles never occur in our experience, 
when no revelation is commimicated from 
God. This is extremely fallacious, for the 
fact that miracles do not occur in our ex- 
perience, when no revelation of the will of 
God is being made to us, cannot furnish the 
slightest presumption against their occur- 
rence, as attestations, when God does make 
a revelation of his will. 

To originate a presumption against the 
occurrence of miracles, Mr. Hume has to 
assume that no revelation has been given, 
by deriving all his proof against miracles, 
From the fact that they do not occur in our 
sxperience, when no revelation is given, 
and then he uses this presumption against 
miracles in proof of his denial of revelation, 
apon which it depends for its own existence. 
To illustrate, Mr. Hume virtually denies 
that any human testimony can make it 
probable that miracles were performed in 
the days of Moses, because no miracles 
iave occurred in the experience of David 
Hume, whose lifetime was three thousand 
^ears later upon the chart of time than that 
3f Moses. Now as it is not pretended that 
xny revelation from God was given to Mr. 
Hume, or to any other person in his time,, to 
Tiake the fact that no miracles occurred in 
lis experience, establish even a probability 
that no miracles occurred in the experience 
3f Moses, it must first be made equally cer- 
tain that no revelation was communicated 
through Moses, hence to bring the fact that 
ao miracle occurred in the experience of Mr- 
Hume, to prove that none occurred in the ex- 



perience of Moses, is to beg the whole question 
at issue ; it is to deny that Moses was in- 
spired, and then to assert a probability 
which depends upon the truth of that denial 
for existence, in proof of the denial itself. 

3. Mr. Hume commits the logical blun- 
der of insisting upon, as essential to the evi- 
dence of miracles, what, if it existed, would 
destroy the force of all such evidence. He 
asserts, as remarked above, the fact that no 
miracles occur in our experience, when no 
revelation is being received from God, as 
strong presumptive proof against the occur- 
rence of miracles as attestations of a reve- 
lation when it was given. According to 
this, in order to give any force to the evi- 
dence of miracles, miracles must occur in 
our own experience, which would of itself 
destroy all evidence derived from miracles. 
If miracles were of common occurrence in 
our experience, when no revelation is re- 
ceived from God, their occurrence in con- 
nection with the giving of a revelation, 
could furnish no proof of such a revelation. 
It is because they never occur in our ex- 
perience, that they are sufficient attesta- 
tions of a revelation from God, when they 
occur in connection with what claims to be 
such a revelation. Thus does Mr. Hume 
ground his objection to the evidence of 
miracles, on the non-occurrence of miracles 
in our experience, whereas, if they did 
occur it would destroy all evidence to be 
derived from miracles. Such a great and 
obvious absurdity is worthy only of the 
cause of infidelity, and can be needed only 
to support error. 

4. The objection starts with a false as- 
sumption, that " experience is our only 
guide in reasoning concerning matters of 
fact." 

Experience is not our only guide in 
reasoning concerning matters of fact, for 
there is, beyond all doubt, an adaptation in 
human testimony to produce belief, prior to 
all experience on the subject. That expe- 
rience has much to do in enabling us to put 
a proper estimate upon human testimony, 
is admitted, but that it is our only guide is 



44 



THE INSPIRATION OP THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



denied. This is maintained from the fact 
that testimony has an adaptation to pro- 
duce belief independently of experience, as 
stated above. If it were not so, testimony 
would be good for nothing in a case upon 
which our past experience shed no light to 
guide us. There must be a first time with 
every person when a matter is presented on 
human testimony, and if experience is our 
only guide, such a person would have no 
guide, yet he will receive or reject the tes- 
timony, and believe or disbelieve in the 
matters presented, just as certainly, if not 
so accurately, as when he has become more 
experienced. The truth is, reason itself 
can examine facts and principles presented, 
compare them, and deduce conclusions, in- 
dependently of past experience ; in this 
way it commences its operations without 
experience ; and by the process acquires 
experience. As there is a natural adapta- 
tion in testimony to produce belief, the 
light of experience is necessary only to 
teach us when to doubt or when to reject 
testimony, not when to believe it. The 
rule is that testimony is to be received as 
true, unless there are apparent reasons for 
doubting or disbelieving it. But though 
men are known sometimes to give false tes- 
timony, the principle bearing of experience 
is not to teach us this fact, but to teach us 
under what circumstances men give false 
testimony, that we may judge of their cred- 
ibility as witnesses, in view of all the facts 
presented ; not so much from the simple 
fact that the matter is new, before unheard 
of, or of common occurrence, as from the 
position of the witness to know whereof he 
affirms, and the motives which, in his cir- 
cumstances are liable to influence his testi- 
mony. Cases may occur on which experi- 
ence sheds no light beyond these simple 
points of the opportunity of the witness to 
understand the subject, and the motives 
that may influence him to give a false tes- 
timony. 

There is something new every day which 
is unlike anything that has ever occurred 
in our past experience, and it is presented 



for our belief on human testimony. But 
the witnesses are strangers, concerning 
them, we have no experience, and the fact 
to which they testify is one which never 
before occurred so far as our knowledge 
extends. 

If experience were our only guide, in Mr. 
Hume's sense, in such a case it would neu- 
tralize itself, and there could be no convic- 
tion ; the uniform experience against the 
occurrence of such a fact, would balance if 
not outweigh our partial experience of the 
veracity of human testimony. But there is 
conviction produced in just such cases ; 
reason looks at the testimony, and decides, 
not so much from experience, as upon the 
face of the testimony itself, as then and 
there presented for the first time. If it 
were not so, nothing could be proved by 
human testimony the first time it occurred, 
nothing could be proved only by the per- 
sonal experience of each for himself, and the 
experience and observations of each would 
be lost to all the rest of mankind. This is 
an inevitable consequence of the position of 
Mr. Hume. Professor Morse has discov- 
ered the principle of the Telegraph, and 
has invented the machinery for communi- 
cating intelligence on the wings of light- 
ning, and he has sent a dispatch from New 
York to Washington, and obtained an an- 
swer in less than three seconds. This is 
new, nothing of the kind ever occurred bo- 
fore, the whole testimony of our experience, 
as Mr. Hume reasons, proves that no such 
things has been done. Now, persons go 
out from the oflice and tell the wonderful 
story to the honest farmers, who never saw 
a telegraph, and who would not understand 
it should they see it, who have never expe- 
rienced any such thing, any more than Mr. 
Hume had experienced a miracle, and ac- 
cording to his mode of reasoning against 
miracles, the report concerning the tele- 
graph cannot be believed only as each ex- 
periences it for himself. Thus is Mr. 
Hume's mode of reasoning contradicted by 
plain matter of fact. 

5. If we were to admit the entire prem- 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



45 



ises of Mr. Hume, his conclusions would I 
not follow, but directly the reverse would 
follow. Our experience concerning human 
testimony, we admit is variable, we find it 
sometimes true and sometimes false. But 
experience has also taught us how to esti- 
mate human testimony from the circumstan- 
ces under which it is given. An invaria- 
ble experience teaches us that men never 
give false testimony but from one of two 
causes ; first, ignorance of the facts in the 
case, or secondly, selfishness ; thus by these 
two circumstances do we learn to estimate 
the credibility of testimony, we ask our- 
selves first, is the witness informed on the 
subject ? Had he an opportunity to know 
the facts? and secondly, we inquire, is 
there any strong, selfish motives, to induce 
him to give false testimony. If the wit- 
ness was not in a position to understand the 
facts, his testimony weighs but little ; and 
if he has strong selfish motives to give the 
testimony he does, it greatly lessens its 
force, though it does not destroy it. A 
man may testify to the truth when that 
truth is highly promotive of his personal 
interest ; and a man may testify to the 
truth when that truth is opposed to his in- 
terests ; but men, as a whole, are less likely 
to do so, hence interest lessens the force of 
testimony, though it does not itself destroy it. 
But men never knowingly testify falsely 
without selfish motives inducing them so to 
do. Apply the above principles to Mr. 
Hume's reasoning, and his argument will be- 
come a powerful one in support of the truth 
of the record of miracles, as well as of reve- 
lation itself. We will construct the princi- 
ples of Mr. Hume's reasoning into an argu- 
ment so plain and simple, that we are sure 
every one will see and feel its force. 

1. " Experience," he says, " is our only 
guide in reasoning concerning matters of 
fact." 

2. '' Experience is in some things varia- 
ble and in some things uniform. A variable 
experience gives rise only to probability ; a 
uniform experience amounts to a proof." To 
this we add 



3. Universal experience, with the great- 
est uniformity, teaches us that men never 
give false testimony, unless through igno- 
rance or selfishness, and especially, never 
when such testimony is strongly against 
their own interests. But the witnesses of 
the Scriptures, as has been abundantly 
shown, could not have been mistaken, and 
could have no motive to have given a false 
testimony. They testified to their own per- 
sonal damage, and sufiered the loss of all 
things, even life itself, for the sake of the tes- 
timony they gave. Now w^e maintain that 
human nature was never known, in any other 
case, to give false testimony, in connection 
with such opportunities to know the truth, 
and under such strong selfish considerations 
to withhold such testimony ; and the conse- 
quence is, if we take experience as our guide, 
which Mr. Hume affirms " is our guide in 
reasoning concerning matters of fact," the 
conclusion is irresistible that the testimony 
of the sacred writers is true. There is no 
evading this ; there is no variable experi- 
ence on the subject to weaken the testimony, 
or to throw the slightest shadow of doubt 
upon the conclusion. 

If Mr Hume could rise from the dead to 
defend his own argument, he would have to 
retract his position that " experience is our 
only guide in reasoning upon matters of 
fact," and that " a uniform experience 
amounts to proof ;" or else he would have to 
insist that our experience is that men will 
give false testimony when every possible 
selfish consideration in the highest possible 
degree urges them to a different course ; and 
to retract the former, would be to remove 
the foundation of his own argument, and to 
assert the latter would be to contradict 
every man's consciousness, insult common 
sense, and render himself ridiculous. 

It is then perfectly clear that an invaria- 
ble experience teaches, that men never give 
false testimony in such circumstances as 
those in which the sacred writers gave their 
testimony ; and at this point we will take 
our leave of Mr. Hume, and let him 
sleep on, while the gospel he sought to 



46 



THE INSPIEATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



overthrow, lives and spreads to enlighten 
and bless the world. 

There is one other objection to the evi- 
dence of miracles worthy of a reply. It is 
sometimes urged that counter-miracles were 
wrought by the enemies of the truth, and by 
wicked agencies which destroy the evidence 
of miracles in support of a revelation from 
God. The first case to which we allude, is 
the performance of the magicians of Egypt, 
in opposition to the miracles of Moses. The 
Egyptian magicians imitated the three first 
miracles performed by Moses and Aaron ; 
they threw down their rods and they be- 
came serpents, they produced blood from 
the waters, and brought up frogs from the 
river. In reply to the objection founded upon 
these transactions, we remark that it is not 
certain that anything of the nature of a mir- 
acle was performed. They are called sor- 
cerers and magicians ; what ever they did 
was performed " by their enchantments ;" it 
may be therefore, that it was a slight-of-hand 
operation, by which false appearances were 
produced. Such performances are still prac- 
tised by skillful deceivers. The serpents 
may have been provided and concealed, and 
then by art, substituted for the rods at the 
proper time. So with the production of 
blood and the frogs from the river. 

If this view be admitted, and an Infide 
can admit no other, for he who denies that 
the miracles of Moses were genuine, cannot 
pretend that the magicians wrought genuine 
miracles to oppose them — then if this view 
be admitted, it constitutes no objection to 
the evidence of the miracles performed by 
Moses, for it cannot prove that they were 
also false, for they were superior to the per- 
formance of the magicians. 

Aaron's rod swallows all the rodst)f the 
magicians, and they were able to imitate 
only the three first miracles, when they gave 
it up, and confessed that Moses wrought by 
the power of G-od. Upon the supposition 
then that the magicians only practiced a 
slight-of-hand, their performances constitute 
no objection to the operations of Moses as 
real miracles, but rather strengthen them as 



such. If Moses had only practiced their 
own art, they would have been able to have 
matched him, for they were, doubtless, as 
skillful as men .could be in the art ; and 
hence, the fact that they were entirely out- 
done by him, and constrained to acknowl- 
edge that his acts were performed by the 
power of God, their performances taken in 
connection with the whole history, greatly 
strengthens the evidence that Moses wrought 
real miracles, which were beyond the high- 
est degree of mere human skill. 

If we were to rest our reply here, Infidels 
would contend that there is as much proof 
that the magicians wrought miracles as that 
Moses did, as far as they went, and that 
they may have performed supernatural acts 
by the power of some infernal spirits, and 
if miracles have been performed by the 
agency of wicked spirits, then miracles can- 
not be conclusive proof of a revelation from 
God. 

If we were to admit that the magicians 
did actually produce serpents from their 
rods, turn water into blood, and bring up 
frogs from the river, as really as Moses did, 
it would not invalidate the evidence of mira- 
cles as wrought by Moses in support of his 
divine mission. We are inclined to this 
view of the subject. A fair construction of 
the language employed, it appears to ns, 
must teach that the magicians did succeed 
in their three first attempts to imitate the 
acts of Moses and Aaron, and, of course, if 
they did it, it was not by their own power 
or art, but through the agency of some evil 
spirit, whose aid they invoked by their in- 
cantations. As this view is held by many 
eminent Christians and divines, it is neces- 
sary to meet the objection on this ground, 
and to do it several remarks are necessary. 

1. We are not required to reconcile it 
with the scepticism of Infidels, but only 
with the general doctrines of the Scriptures. 
Now it is a doctrine of the Scriptures, that 
there are spiritual agencies, which operate 
in this world, both good and evil. This was 
believed among the Jews in Christ's time, 
from the fact that they accused him of 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



47 



" casting out devils," by Beelzebub, the 
prince of devils. 

2. This view cannot be objected to on 
the ground that no such spiritual agencies 
are now proved to operate in the world by 
any visible results, nor can it be made the 
occasion for maintaining vulgar supersti- 
tions of modern witchcraft and fortune- 
telling, because it is reasonable to suppose 
the power of such evil spirits is greatly cur 
tailed under the gospel. Christ came to 
destroy the work of the devil, and he cast 
out devils with his word, and suffered them 
not to speak ; he triumphed over them, and 
when the age of miracles passed away we 
must suppose that God would not leave evil 
spirits free, under the gospel, to work visi- 
ble supernatural operations. 

3. The record, upon its face, proves that 
the power by which the magicians per- 
formed their operations, was inferior to and 
under the control of the power by which 
Moses wrought his miracles. When the 
magicians threw down their rods and they 
became serpents, the rod of Moses swallowed 
them all, and thus did Moses triumph over 
them. This rendered the testimony of his 
miracles in favor cf the divinity of his mis- 
sion, just as conclusive, if not more so, than it 
would have been had nothing been done in 
opposition. But more than this, the magi- 
cians did not attempt to imitate the mira- 
cles of Moses but in three instances, and 
then gave it up, and confessed that his ope- 
rations were beyond their power. 

Thus we trust the objection is removed 
upon either ground. It has been shown 
that if the magicians worked a mere slight- 
of-hand, and performed no real miracle, the 
proof that Moses did work real miracles, is 
clear and unimpeached ; and if the magi- 
cians did work miracles by some infernal 
agency, this view harmonizes with the gen- 
eral doctrine of revelation, while it does not 
lessen the evidence from miracles, as the 
power of Moses triumped over all opposi 
tion, and silenced all counter miracles, by 
which his mission was fully attested. 

There is another case to which we may 



do well to allude. We refer to the raising 
of Samuel by the Witch of Endor, 1 Sam., 
xxviii. 14, 21. We suppose that Samuel 
really appeared on this occasion, but we do 
not suppose the Witch of Endor produced 
him or caused him to appear. The most 
rational construction is that God took this 
method to rebuke Saul, and to announce to 
him his approaching doom. That the wo- 
man did not produce him is clear from the 
fact that she was so surprised and alarmed 
at what she saw. His appearance was un- 
expected to her. The text" clearly conveys 
the idea throughout, that the appearance was 
unexpected to the woman. This is Dr. 
Clark's view of the passage. This also was 
the opinion of the Jewish Church, as ex- 
pressed in Ecclus, xlvi, 20, whereof Samuel, 
it is said, that " after his death he prophe- 
sied, and showed the king his end." Joso 
phus also describes the appearance as really 
that of Samuel. Dr. Hales, in his New 
Analysis of Chronology, has an able article 
on this view of the subject. 

Taking the above view of this transac- 
tion, the subject is relieved of all difficulty, 
and it contains not the slightest objection to 
the evidence of miracles. If it were admit- 
ted that the witch did produce Samuel, by 
her incantations, there would be some force 
in the objection, but this idea the text itself 
does not support ; and as God caused the 
old prophet to appear and meet Saul, to the 
terror of both Saul and his hired conjurer, 
there is nothing in it inconsistent with the 
existence of miracles as attestations of a 
divine revelation. 

SECTION IX. 
The Argument Founded upon Prophecy. 

To prophesy, is to tell what will trans- 
pire in the future, which can be known only 
to God. The argument in favor of the in- 
spiration of the Scriptures founded upon 
prophecy is clear and conclusive, and may 
be thus stated : 

1. To foretell what will occur for weeks, 
months, years, centuries, and even tens of 



48 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



centuries to come, is entirely beyond the 
power of human reason and the laws of na- 
ture, and can be done only by the infinite 
mind, who knows all things, and who sees 
the end from the beginning. Whenever, 
therefore, a human mind does declare future 
events with certainty, the proof is conclu- 
sive that such mind is in communion with 
the infinite mind, and only speaks as the re- 
vealing spirit dictates. 

2. The prophets of the Scriptures claimed 
to be in such communion with God, fre- 
quently prefacing what they said, with 
" thus saith the Lord," and in his name they 
foretell events which actually transpired, 
years and centuries after their predictions 
were uttered. This renders it certain that 
they were inspired, and that the doctrines 
and precepts which they uttered are a reve- 
lation from God. The only points necessary 
to be proved, are the facts that predictions 
were uttered, such as human foresight could 
not discover, and that such predictions were 
subsequently fulfilled. 

The first prediction found upon the sa- 
cred page, as we read the Scriptures, was 
pronounced by God himself, without the 
intervention of prophet : Gen. iii. 15. " And 
I will put enmity between thee and 
the woman, and between thy seed and her 
seed, it (he) shall bruise thy head, and thou 
shalt bruise his heel." 

We believe that this v/as prophetic of 
the warfare between Christ and the Devil, 
and their respective adherents, as developed 
in the experience and history of mankind. 
We shall not detain the reader at this point 
to answer the objection that the whole story 
of which this is a part, is a mere allegory ; the 
reply to this objection more properly be- 
longs to an investigation into what is called 
the fall of man, to be made after the truth ^ 
of the Scriptures have been established.! 
Nor is it necessary to spend much time on 
the question of a literal application of the; 
words to the serpent, or the race of serpents' 
in general. The common belief among! 
Christians, is that the Devil was the real 
deceiver in the case, and that he used the 



serpent as an instrument in the accomplish- 
ment of his infernal scheme ; that the Devil 
acted through the serpent. This being the 
case the sentence may be two-fold, affecting 
both the serpent and the devil that acted 
through the serpent. The first part clearly 
concerned the serpent, which though " more 
subtle than any beast of the field," was 
cursed above all cattle, and above every 
beast in the field," and doomed to crawl and 
feed upon the dust of the earth. Dr. Clark 
thinks the serpent to have been of the 
ourang outang species, which appears to 
liave been originally designed to walk erect, 
but which now puts down hands and goes 
on all fours. 

But that the latter clause, which Ave re- 
gard as a prophecy, relates to the devil, 
and to Christ as the seed of the woman, we 
have no doubt. It is not true of any class 
of serpents ; serpents have no more enmify 
to man than various other animals and in- 
sects. They sometimes bite, and so do 
other animals, but the serpent is less likely 
to bite than the hornet is to sting. But of 
Satan and his adherents, and Christ ,and 
his adherents it has its fulfillment ; there is a 
perpetual enmity existing, and a perpetual 
warfare maintained ; in this sense it is an 
important prophecy, and may be clearly 
seen to be fulfilled, and in process of fulfill- 
ment. At the time it was uttered, no hu- 
man calculation could have reached the 
conclusions which have been developed 
through all succeeding centuric»3. At the 
time it was written by Moses, no human 
foresight could have seen that the struggle 
would be maintained, and that truth and 
light would ultimately gain the ascendency 
which the gospel assures us will yet be the 
case. To all human appearances, the prob- 
abilities were then on the side of the suc- 
cess of error, for the great portion of the 
world was given to idolatry, and Moses 
could not have foreseen that the few would 
not go over to the many, and put an end to 
the strife and enmity. But let us look at 
some of the particulars of this prophecy. 

1. It clearly relates to Christ as the wo- 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



49 



man's seed, and in this sense it has a strik- 
ing fulfillment. Christ in his humanity, 
was emphatically the seed of the woman, 
because he was born of a virgin, and had 
no father after the flesh. To the same fact 
the apostle alludes in Gal. iv. 4. " God 
sent forth his son, made of a woman, made 
under the law to redeem them that were 
under the law." The expression " made of 
a woman," points him out as the seed of 
the woman that was to bruise the serpent's 
head. The same allusicn to the sentence 
pronounced upon the serpent is made, Heb. 
ii. 14, 15. " For as much as the children are 
partakers of flesh and blood, he also him- 
self likewise took part of the same, that 
through death he might destroy him that 
had the power of death, that is, the devil." 
The original prediction said that the seed 
of the woman should bruise the serpent's 
head, and four thousand years afterwards, 
we are told that Christ was made of a wo- 
man, and took part of flesh and blood, that 
he by death, might destroy the devil, which 
strikes us as a very clear fulfillment. 

A similar allusion is made in 1 John, iii. 
8. " He that committeth sin, is of the 
devil ; for the devil sinueth from the begin 
ning. For this purpose the Son of Gcd 
was manifested, that he might destroy the 
works of the devil !'^ Here the devil is re- 
ferred to as the first sinner and the leader 
of that side, they are of him. This clearly 
points to the part he played in the decep' 
tion of Eve, by which sin was introduced 
into this world — " the devil sinneth from 
the beginning." And as it was then pre- 
dicted, that the seed of the woman should 
bruise his head, it is here said that he was 
manifested, " that he might destroy the 
works of the devil." 

2. In a general sense the prediction refers 
to the moral warfare that has been and still 
is maintained between Christ and all his 
adherents, and to the final triumph of the 
former over the latter. It has its fulfil- 
ment in every conflict. Satan bruised 
Christ's heel when he tempted and tried 
him, and caused him to suffer and die, but 
4 



Christ bruised his head, when he rose from 
the dead. Satan bruises Christ's heel in 
the persons of his followers, when he tempts 
and tries his disciples, but Christ bruises his 
head through his followers, when they resist 
the devil and triumph over him. A most 
clear allusion to the text in this sense is 
found Eom. xvi. 20. " The God of peace 
shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly." 
The prediction says, " he shall bruise thy 
head," and Paul, more than four thousand 
years afterwards, says, " the God of peace 
shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. 
But Christ will yet bruise Satan's head by 
a final triumph, for he must reign till he 
hath put all enemies under his feet," 1 Cor. 
XV. 25. Satan is one enemy, and hence he 
will be put under Christ's feet, and putting 
him under his feet, is a clear falfillment of 
the prediction, that he should bruise his 
head. 

Thus does it appear that in the first pre- 
diction, uttered at the time of the fall, we 
have foretold that moral warfare which has 
shaken the world for nearly six thousand 
years, and is progressing and developing it- 
self in constant conflicts between truth and 
error, between right and wrong, between 
the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of 
darkness. We have not pressed this first 
prediction, delivered in the form of a sen- 
tence pronounced upon the serpent, because 
we deem it essential to the strength of our 
argument, as we trust the reader 'will be 
convinced, that there is clear and strong 
proof enough without it, before we shall 
have finished ; but we have urged and elabo- 
rated it because it is the first in order, and 
sustains an important relation to the plan 
of human redemption, the first intimation 
of the ultimate defeat of Satan, who tri- 
umphed in his first assault upon our race. 

We read. Gen. xlix. 10, " The sceptre 
shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver 
from between his feet, until Shiloh come ; 
and unto him shall the gathering of the 
people be." That this text is a prophecy is 
clear from its language and the circumstan- 
ces under which it was pronounced. It is a 



50 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCEIPTUEES. 



[book I. 



part of Jacob's dying address to his sons, 
and is prefaced thus : " And Jacob called 
unto his sons, and said, gather yourselves 
together that I may tell you that which 
shall befall you in the last clays." He then 
proceeded to pronounce a prophecy upon 
each of his twelve sons, through them upon 
the twelve tribes that should descend from 
them. That the prophecy related more 
particularly to their descendants than to 
them personally, is clear from the expres- 
sion, " that I may tell you that which shall 
befall you in the last days." The prophecy 
itself foretells two events, which are so re 
lated as to render the fulfillment conspicuous 
The first event is the supremacy of Judah 
which was to continue until the second event 
should transpire, which is the coming of 
Shiloh, to whom the government should be 
transferred, signified by the expression, " unto 
him shall the gathering of the people be." 
The literal meaning of the whole text is, 
that the tribe of Judah should remain as a 
distinct tribe under the internal government 
of its own princes, until Christ should come. 
This has been clea.rly fulfilled as shall now 
be shown. 

The sceptre did not depart from Judah, 
nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until 
Chi'ist came. By the term sceptre, we are 
to understand tribeship. The word signifies 
a rod of authority, because carried in the 
hand of rulers and chiefs, as an ensign or 
badge of authority. The word is also often 
used to denote a tribe. Because it was car- 
ried by the head of each tribe, it was the 
proof of a distinct tribe, or separate govern- 
mental authority ; and hence, when it is 
said that the sceptre shall not depart from 
Judah, the meaning is the tribeship shall 
not depart, or Judah shall not cease to be a 
distinct tribe until Shiloh shall come. 

The expression, " nor a lawgiver from 
between his feet," appears to us to denote a 
prince or ruler of his own offspring or pro- 
geny. In this sense it has been fulfilled. 
The tribe of Judah did maintain its distinct 
independence of all the other tribes ; and 
through all their captivities, and under all 



their subjugations by other powers, they 
retained their own princes, with an internal, 
self-governing authority, until after the 
Saviour's advent, and then the sceptre final- 
ly departed. 

Shiloh came while Judah yet remained a 
distinct tribe. By Shiloh is clearly meant 
the Messiah. It is true that learned critics 
differ as to the derivation and sense of the 
vv^ord, but all agree as to its application to 
Christ. The three more probably render- 
ings of the text are as follows. Some, fol- 
lowing the reading of the Septuagent, render 
the text thus : " The sceptre shall not de- 
part from Judah, nor a lawgiver from be- 
tween his feet, until the coming of him to 
whom it is reserved ;" that is the sceptre 
shall remain with Judah until he shall come 
to whom it belongs — the Messiah. Others 
following the Hebrew as they suppose, de- 
rive the word from the Hebrew word, Sha- 
lah, which signifies, " he was calm, quiet, 
centented, at rest, at ease," and hence make 
Shiloh mean peace-maker, and translate the 
text thus : " The sceptre shall not depart 
from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between 
his feet, until the peace-maker' comes." 
Others, and in our view more correctly, de- 
rive Shiloh from Shalach, the primary sense 
of which is, " he sent forth, appointed, com- 
missioned as a messenger or ambassador." 
This word occurs. Gen. xxiv. 7, in the ex- 
pression, "he shall send his angel before 
thee." This derivation makes Shiloh sig- 
nify '' the Messenger," or " he that is sent." 
Those who derive the word as above, trans- 
late the text, " The sceptre shall not de- 
part from Judah, until he that is to be sent 
shall come." This, says Dr. Clarke, is the 
reading of the Yulgate, qui mittendus est, he 
that is to he sent. He also quotes an allusion 
to this sense of the text from a rabbinical 
comment on Deut. xxii. 7 : "If ye keep 
this precept, you hasten the coming of the 
Messiah, who is called Sent." Paul, Heb, iii 

applies the same name to Jesus Christ 
when he calls him the " Apostle and High 
Priest of our profession." This word 
Apostolos, Apostle signifies one sent. By 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



51 



" our profession," or our confession as Dr. 
Macknig'ht renders it, must be meant Chris- 
tianity, the religion we profess ; and hence 
Jesus Christ is the apostle, the one sent, or 
the Messenger of Christianity. Christ is 
then the Shiloh, the Sent, the Messenger, at 
whose coming the sceptre departed from 
Judah. 

We are now prepared to close the argu- 
ment drawn from this particular prophecy. 

It was pronounced by dying Jacob, near- 
ly seventeen hundred years before the birth 
of Christ, and before his descendants had be- 
come a nation, or had even multiplied into 
tribes. From this point, far back on the 
chart of time, his prophetic eye looked down 
through dark and undeveloped centuries, and 
traced the career of his descendants, and saw 
Judah bearing the sceptre long after it had 
fallen from the hands of the other princes 
that came out of his loins, until he saw an- 
other arise in the midst of this tribe, the 
promised seed, the Shiloh, the Sent, to set 
up a spiritual kingdom, when he saw the 
sceptre depart from Judah and his existence 
lost as a distinct tribe ; while the people, 
yea"^ the nations, were gathered to the new 
and spiritual prince, whose kingdom is not 
of this world. The points included in the 
prophecy and distinctly fulfilled are as fol- 
lows : 

1. The subjugation or extinction of the 
other tribes. The assertion that the scep- 
tre should not depart from Judah, implied 
that it would depart from out the other 
tribes. Ten of the tribes were lost, so that 
wherever they are or have been is not known, 
since they were carried away captive be- 
yond the Euphrates. The final removal of 
the ten tribes took place about nine hun- 
dred years after the prediction was uttered, 
when the sceptre departed from them. This 
left only two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, 
and Benjamin was so joined to the kingdom 
of Judah that the sceptre passed from his 
hand, and Judah of all the tribes, alone held 
the sceptre. This v^hich no human eye 
could see, was foretold by Jacob. 

2. The prediction asserts that Judah 



should continue to hold the sceptre until 
Shiloh should come. This also was fulfilled. 
Judah was carried away captive, but this 
tribe never lost its distinct organic existence, 
but even in its captivity had its own heads 
and princes, and carried its distinctive scep- 
tre. This we learn from the fact that when 
Cyrus issued his proclamation for the Jews 
to return and rebuild the temple, we read 
that " then rose up the chief of the fathers of 
Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and 
the Levites with them." Also we read that 
Cyrus brought all the vessels of the temple 
which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away 
and delivered thei.. " unto Sheshbazzar the 
prince of Judah." They were not deliver- 
ed to the prince of Benjamin, but to the 
prince of Judah. Judah alone had a prince, 
and held a sceptre. Thus did Judah main- 
tain its distinct existence as a body politic, 
until Shiloh came. Even in the days of 
Christ, when Judah was a Roman Province, 
tliey maintained their own peculiar govern- 
ment in internal matters. 

3. The prophecy asserts, by implication at 
least, that the sceptre should depart from 
Judah when Shiloh should come. This also 
was fulfilled. When the Jews appeared 
before Pilate to accuse Christ, they declared 
that they had no king but C«zar, and 
thereby confessed that the sceptre had de- 
parted from Judah. Soon after, their civil 
and ecclesiastical polity was dissolved, and 
all distinction of tribes lost in the common 
ruin of the nation. 

4. The prophecy includes the fact that Shi- 
loh should be of the tribe of Judah. Judah 
was to survive and hold the sceptre until 
Shiloh should come, which clearly implies that 
he was to come of this tribe, which was ful- 
filled, as Paul says, (Heb. vii. 14), "It is 
evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah." 
That Jacob understood that a Shiloh, a 
Saviour had been promised, and that he 
should come through one of his twelve sons, 
no one can doubt ; but how he could have 
traced the future course of those sons, and 
the tribes that were to rise from them, and 
tell that the Great Abrahamic promise 



52 



THE INSPIRATION OP THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I 



would be fulfilled in Judah, can be explained 
upon no principle, only that the inspiration 
of the Almighty gave him a view of the 
events of distant centuries. 

These two leading prophecies which have 
been examined relate to the promised Mes- 
siah, but to elaborate other predictions to 
the same extent would extend our argument 
beyond reasonable limits. We will sum up 
the prophecies which relate to Christ, in as 
brief a manner as possible. 

1. He was to come before the sceptre 
should depart from Judah. Gen. xlix. 10. 
This has been explained. 

2. He was to come while the second tem- 
ple should yet stand. Haggai ii, 7. " I will 
shake all nations, and the desire of all na- 
tions shall come ; and I will fill this house 
with glory, saith the Lord of hosts." Mai. 
iii. 1. " The Lord whom ye seek shall sud- 
denly come to his temple, even the messen- 
ger of the covenant." This was fulfilled ; 
Christ came to that temple, and filled it 
with the glory of the gospel of salvation. 

3. He was to be the son of Abraham. Gen. 
xii. 3. " In thee shall all the families of the 
earth be blessed." This was fulfilled in Christ. 

4. He was to descend from Isaac and not 
from Ishmael. Gen. xvii. 12. " In Isaac 
shall thy seed be called." 

5. He was to be the descendant of Jacob 
and not of Esau. Gen. xxv. 33. " He sold 
his birthright unto Jacob." In chapter 
xxviii. 14, the promise made to Abraham 
was renewed to Jacob. " In thy seed shall 
all the families of the earth be blessed." 

6. He was to descend from the tribe of 
Judah. This has been explained in connec- 
tion with Gen. xlix. 10. 

7. He was to descend from Jesse. Isa. 
xi. 1. " There shall come forth a rod out of 
the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow 
out of his roots." 

8. He was to descend from David, the 
youngest son of Jesse. Psal. Ixxxix. 27, 
28. " Also will I make him, my first born, 
higher than the kings of the earth. My 
mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and 
my covenant shall stand fast with him." 



This is said of David. All these points in 
relation to his genealogy were most clearly 
and literally fulfilled in Christ. 

9. A messenger was to go before him to 
prepare his way. Isa. xl. 3. The voice of 
him that crieth in the wilderness, prepare 
ye the way of the Lord, make straight in 
the desert a highv/ay for our God. Mai. iii. 
1. " Behold I will send my messenger, and 
he shall prepare the way before me." This 
was fulfilled by the ministry of John. Matt. 
iii. 1. " This is he that was spoken of by the 
prophet Esaias, (Isaiah) saying, the voice 
of one crying in the wilderness, prepare 
ye the way of the Lord, make his paths 
straight." See also Mark i. 2, 3. 

10. He was to be born of a virgin. Isa. 
vii. 14. •'' Behold a virgin shall conceive, 
and bear a son, and shall call his name Im- 
manual." This was fulfilled in the person 
of Mary the mother of Jesus. 

11. He was to be born in Bethlehem 
and not in Jerusalem. Micah. v. 2. " But 
thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be 
little among the thousands of Judah, yet out 
of thee shall he come forth unto me that is 
to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth 
have been from of old, from everlasting." 
This was brought to pass by a decree issuedj 
by the Roman government, which brought 
Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem to be en- 
rolled upon the tax list, at the right time 
for Christ to be born there. It was not 
their place of residence. 

12. He was to ride into Jerusalem upon 
an ass colt. Zechariah, ix. 9. " Rejoice 
greatly, daughter of Zion, shout, daugh- 
ter of Jerusalem ; behold thy king cometh 
unto thee ; he is just and having salvation ; 
lowly and riding upon an ass, and upon a 
colt, the foal of an ass." This was fulfilled 
as recorded in Matt. xxi. 1, 11. 

13. He was to be rejected by the Jews. 
Isa. liii. 3. " He is despised and rejected of 
men ; a man of sorrows, and acquainted 
with grief; and we hid, as it were, our 
faces from him ; he was despised, and we 
esteemed him not." This was so clearly ful- 
filled that it is unnecessary to quote proof. 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



53 



14. He was to be scourged and spit upon 
Isa. 1. 6. " I gave my back to the smiters 
and my cheeks to them that phicked off the 
hair ; I hid not my face from shame and 
spitting." This was fulfilled, even to the spit- 
ting upon him. Matt. xxvi. 67. "Then did 
they spit in his face, and buffetted him ; and 
others smote him with the palms of their 
hands." See also Matt, xxvii. 30. 

15. He was to receive vinegar and 
to drink. Psal. Ixix. 21. " They gave me 
also gall for my meat, and in my thirst they 
gave me vinegar to drink." This was ful- 
filled. Matt, xxvii. 34. " They gave him vin- 
egar to drink mingled with gall." 

16. He was to be numbered with trans- 
gressors. Isa. liii. 9. ''He made his grave 
with the wicked." Yerse 12. " He was 
numbered with the transgressors." This 
was fulfilled in the fact of his being put to 
death between two malefactors as he was. 

17. It was foretold what should be done 
with his garments. Psa. xxii. 18. " They 
part my garments among them, and cast lots 
upon my vesture." This was fulfilled to the 
very letter at the crucifixion. Matt, xxvii. 
35. " And they parted his garments, casting 
lots ; that it might be fulfilled which was 
spoken by the prophet ; they parted my 
garments among them, and upon my vesture 
did they cast lots." 

18. It was foretold that he should be put 
in a rich man's tomb. Isa. liii. 9 " And 
he made his grave with the wicked and with 
the rich in his death." This was fulfilled as 
recorded in Matt, xxvii. 57-60. " There 
came a rich man of Arimathea, named 
Joseph ; he went to Pilate and begged the 
body of Jesus, and laid it in his own new 
tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock." 
Thus did he make his grave with the rich 
as was predicted centuries before. 

19. It was predicted that he should not 
see corruption. Psal. xvi. 10. " For thou 
wilt not leave my soul in hell : neither wilt 
thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption." 
This was fulfilled, as he rose the third day 
before the body was corrupted in the process 
of decomposition. 



20. His resurrection was predicted. The 
text last quoted from Psalms is a prediction 
of his resurrection. But we have another, 
Isa. liii. In verse 8th it is inquired, " who 
shall declare his generation ? for he was cut 
off out of the land of the living. The an- 
swer is found in the 10th verse. " When thou 
shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he 
shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, 
and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper 
in his hand." Here it is affirmed, that he 
shall prolong his days after being cut ofl 
out of the land of the living. This is a 
clear declaration that he should rise from 
the dead. 

There are other predictions concerning 
CJirist which might be quoted ; but the 
above is sufficient for this class of prophe- 
cies. We have named twenty particulars 
foretold by prophets, which were fulfilled in 
Christ, and which were never fulfilled in 
any other person, and such an array of facts 
should be in itself sufficient to settle the 
question so far as the evidence of prophecy 
can settle any question. 

These prophecies occupy a period of time 
covering more than a thousand years. The 
earliest of them were delivered between six- 
teen and seventeen hundred years before the 
birth of Christ, and the latest was delivered 
between three and four hundred years before 
Christ. This stamps the Scriptures with 
the mind of the all-knowing G-od. 

Having sufficiently considered the prophe- 
cies which relate to our Lord Jesus Christ, 
we will conclude the argument by briefly 
noticing a few miscellaneous predictions, 
which we will select from the general mass 
that make up so large a portion of the in- 
spired volume. The first prophecy to which 
attention is invited, concerns Ishmael, the 
son of Abraham by Hagar, an Egyptian 
servant woman. Gen. xvi. 12 : " And he 
will be a wild man; and his hand, will be 
against every man, and every man's hand 
against him ; and he shall dwell in the pre- 
sence of all his brethren." This, no doubt, 
relates not only to Ishmael, but also to his 
descendants, and has a literal and entire ac- 



54 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



complishment in the Isbmaelites or Arabs. 
That they descended from Abraham through 
Ishmael there can be no doubt ; we not only 
have the united testimony of all writers of 
profane history, but we find unquestionable 
proof among the Arabs themselves ; they 
bear the unquestionable mark of the seed 
of Abraham. They have always boasted 
of having descended from Abraham. And 
they are circumcised, and profess to have 
derived this right from Abraham. When we 
consider that it is said, Gen. xvii. 23, that 
Abraham circumcised Ishmael, and that the 
Jews and Arabs are the only nations that 
have practised the rite as a national distinc 
tion, the proof that the Arabs are the descen 
dants of Ishmael is nearly as clear as that the 
Jews are the descendants of Isaac. But we 
suppose no one versed in history will dispute 
either. The character of the Arabs is clearly 
a fulfillment of the prophecy. Their hand has 
ever been against every man, and every 
man's hand against them, and it is so to tliis 
day. They have been, and still are, a na 
tion of robbers, and plunder all that fall in 
their way. They are wild men. They are 
the only people, save the Jews, that liave 
subsisted as a distinct people from the be- 
ginning. There is not, perhaps, anotJier 
nation except the Jews, that can trace their 
existence back to its origin as a nation ; 
nations have been swallowed up one after 
another, the Assyrians were lost in the 
Chaldeans and Babylonians ; the Babylo- 
nians were swallowed up by the Medes ; the 
Medes by the Persians ; the Persians were 
lost in the Greeks ; the Greeks in the Syri 
ans and Egyptians ; these were swallowed 
up by the Eomans ; and the Eomans were 
swallowed up by the Goths and other na- 
tions ; but there Ishmael stands a distinct 
people, an independent wild man still, and 
still his hand is against every man, and every 
man's hand is against him. Between three 
and four thousand years has Ishmael, through 
his descendants, " dwelt in the presence of 
all his brethren," and still dwells upon the 
same soil, lives in the same manner, and pos- 
sesses essentially the same character, fulfil- 1 



ling the prediction that was uttered in the 
ears of his mother before he was born. 
More than thirty-seven hundred years have 
passed over the face of the world with their 
change-producing and wasting influence, 
since Ishmael was dismissed from Abra- 
ham's tent to seek a home and live a wild 
man in the wilderness, and his descendants 
are there still, live in tents still, wander like 
wild men still amid the burning sands, as 
well as amid the rocky cliffs of their own 
wild country. They are independent still ; 
many aspiring potentates among the Aby- 
sinians, Persians, Egyptians and Turks, have 
attempted to tame them, to subjugate these 
wandering tribes, and though some have 
had temporary success, they have ultimately 
failed in the end. It is said that Sesostris, 
king of Egypt, Cyrus, king of Persia, and 
Pompey and Trajan, of Rome, all attempted 
in vain to subdue these wild tribes. The 
country they inhabit is said to be about 
1800 miles long, and 900 wide. They are 
a living evidence of the fulfillment of the 
prediction under consideration. 

The next prediction to which attention is 
invited, is found Deut. xxviii. 15-68. 
This whole prediction has had a most clear 
fulfillment in the history of the Jews ; to 
multiply words on the subject is useless, it 
is seen and read of all men. 

A glance at a few of the predictions re> 
lating to some of the neighboring nations of 
the Jews, will finish what we have to say 
on the prophecies of the Old Testament. 
The overthrow of Babylon was clearly pre- 
dicted by Isaiah and Jeremiah. We se- 
lect the following from among their numer- 
ous declarations on the subject. 

Isaiah xiii.l9, 20, 21 : " And Babylon, 
the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the 
Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God 
overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall 
never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt 
in from generation to generation ; neither 
shall the Arabian pitch tent there, neither 
shall the shepherds make their folds there. 
But wild beasts of the desert shall be there ; 
and their houses sl^all be full of doleful crea- 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OP THE SCRIPTURES. 



55 



tures; and owls shall dwell, and satyrs 
shall dance there." Jer. 1. 35-39 : " A 
sword is upon the Chaldeans, saith the 
Lord, and upon the inhabitants of Babylon. 
^- -X- * Therefore the wild beasts of the 
desert with wild beasts of the islands shall 
dwell there, and the owls shall dwell there- 
in ; and it shall be no more inhabited for- 
ever ; neither shall it be dwelt in from gen- 
eration to generation." It is clear that 
Isaiah flourished during the reign of Heze- 
kiah, for he was sent to him when the king 
was sick, fifteen years before his death. 
Chapter XXX viii. 5. He also predicted in 
the ears of Hezekiah, chapter xxxix. 6 ; 
the Babylonian captivity which took place 
in the days of Jehoiakim, more than a cen^ 
tury after, which will appear by numbering 
the years the several kings reigned between 
Hezekiah and Jehoiakim. Then add sev- 
enty years, the time of the captivity before 
Babylon was overthrown, and w^e see that 
the fall of Babylon was foretold by Isaiah 
nearly two hundred years before it took 
place. The prediction of Jeremiah must 
have been uttered about sixty years before 
the fall of Babylon. 

But the force of the argument does not 
depend wholly upon the fact that the pre- 
diction was uttered so long before its fulfill- 
ment, but also upon the fact that it declares 
that it shall never be re-built or again in- 
habited. This no human eye could have 
seen, yet, after more than twenty centuries 
have rolled away, Babylon is in ruins still, 
and no traveller can now give a better de- 
scription of her ruins than the prophets 
gave more than two thousand years ago, and 
at a time when she was in her highest glory. 
The predictions concerning Tyre, have all 
been minutely fulfilled, and furnish undenia- 
ble proof of the inspiration of the prophets. 
There are several predictions concerning 
Tyre, noting the various changes through 
which it passed during its long existence, 
a few of which only will be noticed. Isa 
iah predicted its depression for seventy 
years, which was fulfilled under Nebuchad 
nezzar, by whom Tyre was taken. These 



seventy years commenced after the seventy 
years of Jewish captivity, and Trye was not 
rebuilt until after the return of the Jews 
from Babylon. Isa. xxiii. 15 : " And it 
shall come to pass in that day that Tyre 
shall be forgotten seventy years." This 
was fulfilled as above. 

Amos i. 10 ; " But I will send a fire on 
the walls of Tyrus, w^hich shall devour the 
places thereof." Zech. ix. 3, 4 : •' Tyrus 
did build herself a strong hold, and heaped 
up silver as dust, and fine gold as the mine 
of the streets. Behold the Lord will cast 
her out, and he will smite her power in the 
sea, and she shall be devoured with fire." 
Tyre was built on an island some distance 
from the main land, the city first built on 
the main land having been destroyed by 
Nebuchadnezzar, as noted above. These 
last predictions were fulfilled under Alex- 
ander, who took the new city on the island 
and thus " smote her power in the sea." To 
do this he used the ruins of old Tyre to 
build a causeway between, the main land 
and the city, after which he took it by 
storm and consumed it by fire. Thus were 
the words of the prophets literally fulfilled. 
I will send a fire on the wall of Tyre." 
He will smite her power in the sea, and 
she shall be devoured with fire." 

The final destruction of Tyre was fore- 
told by the prophet Bzekiel, chap. xxvi. 13, 
14 : " And I will cause the noise of thy 
songs to cease, and the sound of thy harps 
shall be no more heard. And I will make 
thee like the top of a rock, thou shallt be a 
place to spread nets upon, thou shalt bo 
built no more, for I the Lord have spoken 
it." This has been fulfilled both to old and 
nev/ Tyre. Old Tyre was destroyed by 
Nebuchadnezzar, and was never rebuilt. 
New Tyre was destroyed by Alexander as 
already noticed, but it was rebuilt. Tyre 
was finally sacked and seized by the Mam- 
elukes of Egypt, about A. D. 1289. Its 
present condition is a clear fulfillment of 
the prophecy last quoted. It is only a fish- 
ing town. Huetius relates of one Hadri- 
anus Parvillerius that " when he approach- 



56 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



ed the ruins of Tyre, and beheld the rocks 
stretched forth to the sea, and the great 
stones scattered up and down on the shore, 
made clean and smooth by the sun, and 
waves, and wind, and useful only for the 
drying of fishermen's nets, many which hap- 
pened at that time to be spread thereon, it 
brought to his memory the prophecy of 
Ezekiel concerning Tyre, that such should 
])e its fate." 

Mr. Bruce says, " passing by Tyre, from 
curiosity, I came to be a mournful witness 
of the truth of that prophecy, that Tyre, 
the Queen of nations, should be a rock for 
fishers to dry their nets on." Tyre has 
grown some since Bruce visited it, but it 
makes no approach to its former wealth 
and grandeur, and it is not likely that it 
ever will. 

The prophecy of Daniel concerning the 
four grand empires is so clear, and its ful- 
fillment is so plain that Infidels have some- 
times asserted that it was written after the 
events it describes had transpired. This 
however, is impossible, for the prophet was 
quoted by Jesus Christ, which was before 
the prediction was entirely accomplished. 
This , prophecy is contained in the second 
chapter, from the first to the forty-fifth 
verse. Four successive empires are here 
described which we find spread out upon 
the page of history as follows : — The Baby- 
lonish empire, the Medo-Persian empire, 
the Grecian empire under Alexander the 
Great, and the Roman empire. These four 
empires were to last until the God of heaven 
should set up a kingdom, no doubt meaning 
the gospel dispensation. See verse 44. 
Now it is clear that Christ was born dur- 
ing the Roman empire, the last of the four, 
and that Christianity entirely subverted 
pagan Rom,e. Thus was^ the wonderful 
prediction fulfilled. 

There are other predictions in the book 
of Daniel, as well as in the other prophets, 
but those which have been adduced are suf- 
ficient to answer all the practical purposes of 
an argument, and here we close our examina- 
tion of the prophecies of the Old Testament 



There are many interesting predictions in 
the New Testament, upon which arguments ■ 
might be based, but two or three only will 
be noticed. The overthrow of Jerusalem is 
predicted in various places in the Evangel- 
ists, but we select a clear passage from Luke 
xix. 43, 44. "The days shall come upon 
thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench 
about thee, and compass thee round, and 
keep thee in on every side, and shall lay 
thee even with the ground, and thy children 
within thee ; and they shall not leave in 
thee one stone upon another." The same 
thing is asserted in several other places. 
That this took place, and was accomplished 
by Titus no one will deny ; so literally did 
he fulfill the prediction, that he caused a 
plough to pass over the place where the 
temple stood, so that not one stone was left 
upon another. Never was there, never 
could there be a plainer fulfillment of proph- 
ecy. 

2 Thes. ii. 3, 4 : " Let no man deceive 
you by any means ; for that day shall not 
come, except there come a falling away first, 
and that man of sin be revealed, the son of 
perdition; who opposeth and exalteth him- 
self above all that is called God, or that is 
worshipped ; so that he, as God setting in 
the temple of God, showing himself that he 
is God." The people appear to have im- 
bibed the idea that Christ was to come to 
judge the world immediately, or in a very 
short time, and this false notion he sought 
to correct, and in doing this, he assured 
them that that day should not come " ex- 
cept there should first come a falling away, 
and that man of sin be revealed." This pre- 
diction has been clearly fulfilled in the great 
apostacy which resulted in the establish- 
ment of popery. A similar prediction is 
found in Paul's first epistle to Tim. iv. 1. 2, 
3 : " Now the spirit speaketh expressly., 
that in the latter times some shall depart 
from the faith, giving heed to seducing 
spirits, and doctrines of devOs ; speaking 
lies in hypocrisy ; having their conscience 
seared with a hot iron ; forbidding to mar- 
ry and commanding to abstain from meats 



CHAP. 11.] 



THE INSPIEATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



57 



which God hath created to be received with 
thanksgiving." That this and the preced- 
ing prediction embrace the essential features 
of popery, no one can doubt ; and that they 
are clearly uttered prophecies, clearly ful- 
filled in a subsequent age, is too plain to be 
deined. Here we close our argument found- 
ed upon prophecy, and trust we have ad- 
duced enough to show that the sacred 
volume bears the undeniable impress of the 
all-pervading, all-searching and revealing 
Spirit of God. 



SECTION X. 

The Adaptation of the Scriptures to the 
Wants of Mankind. 



A revelation from an all-wise and benev- 
olent Creator, given for the benefit of man- 
kind, must be distinguished by its adapta- 
tion to the actual condition and wants of 
humanity, and if this adaptation is found in 
the Scriptures, it will constitute a powerful 
argument in their favor, since no such claim 
can be set up for any other book. That 
the Scriptures, upon their face, set up a 
claim to such adaptation, and that they ac- 
tually treat of all the subjects necessary to 
be treated in such a revelation, cannot be 
denied, though it may be denied that they 
adequately treat these subjects, and fully 
meet the wants of human society. Infidels 
do not pretend to deny that the Scriptures 
treat of the subjects necessary to be treated, 
and that they claim to meet the wants of 
humanity, but they rally all their force on 
a denial of their sufficiency as a standard of 
religious truth and duty. A brief examina- 
tion of the subject will enable the candid to 
judge w^hether or not the Scriptures meet 
the religious wants of mankind. 

I. Mankind are actually depraved in 
heart and life, insomuch that it is as true to 
the eye of the observer, and to universal 
experience, as to the reader of the Scrip- 
tures, that " all have gone out of the way." 
'' All have sinned, and come short of the 



glory of God." This language which we have 
quoted from the Scriptures is true of man- 
kind of every age, and every land. The adult 
human being that has never sinned, never 
done wrong, never gone out of the way, can- 
not be found. This fact of the universal 
corruption of our race cannot be denied. 
Infidels as well as Christians both see it in 
others and feel it in themselves. 

The question then is, are the Scriptures 
adapted to this state of things. We affirm 
they are. 

1. They affirm the fact, they treat of hu- 
man nature as it is, as we actually find it. 
This doctrine of the depravity of humanity, 
must, of necessity, be recognized by any 
religion that would meet its wants ; it must 
be fundamental, and rendered prominent in 
the measures of relief proposed. Now, just 
this is the fact, depravity is a leading doc- 
trine of revelation, and is made exceedingly 
prominent in the gospel. 

2. The Scriptures alone give any reason- 
able history of the origin of depravity. 
They tell us that, "sin entered into the 
world by one man" — that " by one man's 
disobedience many were made sinners." 
They tell us that God created man very 
good, and that he sinned, and involved him- 
self and his posterity in depravity. This is 
not merely the only account we have of the 
origin of sin, but it is the only principle upon 
which the existence of depravity can be re- 
conciled with the infinite power and good- 
ness of the Creator. For want of this 
scriptural history of the origin of evil, some 
of the heathen came to the conclusion that 
God is a compound of good and evil, and 
that the good in Deity produces all the 
good, and that the evil in Deity produces all 
the evil. 

3. The Scriptures present the only ade- 
quate relief for the state of things which 
they describe, and v/hich observation de- 
clares actually to exist. Human ingenuity 
has never succeeded in inventing a remedy 
for sin ; human research has never discov- 
ered any adequate source of relief. Intelli- 
gence discovers the evil, but never finds the 



58 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



the cure ; Immanity often feels its defects, 
and deplores its circumstances, but finds not 
how to improve its condition. The experi- 
ence of Paul is the experience of all who 
attempt a new life without laying hold of the 
remedy offered in the gospel, though all do 
not succeed in expressing so well as he did, 
the conclusion to which their experience 
leads them. " To will is present with me, 
but how to perform that which is good, T find 
not. For the good that I would, I do not ; 
but the evil that I would not, that I do. 
wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver 
me from the body of this death ?" In this 
state of mind the gospel finds the thinking 
sinner, and presents to him an adequate re- 
lief. To relieve his ignorance it pours upon 
his mind the doctrinal light of truth, gleam- 
ing with the very attributes of God ; to re- 
lieve his guilt, it presents him with the 
atonement of Jesus Christ; to relieve his 
helplessness, it reveals the Holy Spirit with 
its gracious influences ; and to cure him of 
his propensity to sin and to heal his diseased 
nature, the same Holy Spirit is presented 
as a reviving and sanctifying instrumentali- 
ty. Thus it is plain that the Scriptures are 
adapted to the condition of mankind as they 
are really found in view of their undeniable 
depravity. 

II. Man is clearly a compound being, 
possessing a physical, and intellectual, and 
moral nature, and to just such a being do 
the Scriptures address themselves ; and of 
the sorrows and felicities of such a being do 
they treat, and the wants of such do they 
propose to relieve. 

1. The Scriptures clearly regard the 
wants of the body. In their legislative and 
preceptive portions, as well as in their in- 
structions, is this material form, this casket 
of the immortal gem carefully guarded in 
contradistinction from the soul which dwells 
within. Food, drink, raiment and medi- 
cine, are treated of in a legal point of view, 
as between man and man, and in a provi- 
dential point of view, as between God and 
man. Death is a constant theme as cer- 
tain to befall the body, and as one of the 



consequences of sin, and while reason can 
discover no remedy, and the eye of the phi- 
losopher cannot penetrate the night of the 
grave, the Scriptures present a remedy in 
the person of Christ, who died and rose 
again, and " who has abolished death and 
brought life and immortality to light through 
the gospel." 

2. The Scriptures are adapted to man's 
intellectual nature and wants. They treat 
of mind, and deal with mind with a mas- 
terly philosophic skill, infinitely above the 
common authors of the ages in which they 
were written. They seek to enlighten its 
darkness, to direct and control its efforts ; 
they seek to control it as mind ; they ap- 
peal to the understanding, present proper 
motives as well as treat of improper ones, 
they lay open the mind to its own view, and 
show the secret springs that move it. They 
treat of mental culture and teach us the 
importance of attaining to a high degree 
of understanding. 

3. The Scriptures are adapted to man's 
moral nature and wants. When we con- 
template man as a moral being, we conceive 
of him as possessed of volition or freedom 
of will, intelligence to guide it, a conscience 
which renders him susceptible of impres- 
sions of right and wrong ; we conceive of 
him as an accountable being, a subject ef 
moral law, and of a just retribution, and 
consequently a subject of hopes and fears, 
connected with the relation which the pres- 
ent life sustains to a future destiny. Now 
the Scriptures address themselves to man- 
kind precisely upon these grounds ; they 
not only assume to enlighten them by the 
communication of truth, but they appeal to 
their understanding, their judgipent in vin- 
dication of their claims ; they appeal to 
their consciences, and seek to rouse them 
within, to influence their will in favor of the 
right ; they constantly treat of the present 
life as a probationary state, and remind them 
of the shortness and uncertainty of its du- 
ration, and labor to impress them with the 
unsubstantial character and deceptiveness 
of the brightest wordly objects that would 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIEATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



m 



attract their attention, and divert them from 
the higher interest of their future destiny ; 
and they enforce the whole by appeals to 
the claims of God their Maker, and by ap- 
peals to their hopes and fears, pointing them 
to a day of Judgment, and to a retribution, 
on one hand as bright as hope can paint 
with the pencil of enlightened and sanctified 
imagination, and on the other, as dark as 
fear can suggest, where despair lends the 
shadow of its wing to give the last glooDiy 
aspect to the picture. TJius is it seen that 
the Scriptures are fully adapted to meet the 
entire demands of man's moral nature ; and 
they exhibit a deep philosophical knowledge 
of his moral natm-e, of its wants and the 
influences that control it, unknown to any 
mere human composition of the times in 
which they were written. 

III. Man is clearly and undeniably, a 
social being, and the Scriptures are adapt- 
ed to his social nature and wants. 

1. The institution of marriage, which is 
the first link in the chain of human associ- 
ations, is recognized, regulated and guarded 
by the Scriptures. All improper inter- 
course of the sexes is interdicted, the mar- 
riage relation is made sacred and inviolate, 
and the duties of husbands and wives are 
clearly defined and enforced by supreme au- 
thority. 

2. The obligations and duties of parents 
and children are clearly defined and enforced 
in the Scriptures. The relation between 
them constitutes the second link in the chain 
of human associations, and it is fiilly recog- 
nized and provided for in the Scriptures. 

3. Not to multiply distinctions, when we 
pass beyond the family circle, we find men 
existing in larger communities, sustaining 
a relation to each other, as members of the 
commonwealth, and the whole sustaining a 
relation to a constituted goverment, which 
is or shouM be established for the mutual 
benefit of each and all. This is an indis 
pensable condition of mankind, and the 
great principles, obligations and duties of 
these relations are found in the Scriptures 



The great law governing all men in their 
intercourse with each other, is short, plain, 
simple, and capable of universal application. 
" All things whatsoever ye would that men 
should do to you, do ye even so to them, 
for this is the law and the prophets." But 
the duties 'of both rulers and subjects are 
specifically pointed out.- 

4. In conclusion, the unavoidable distinc- 
tion of classes are recognized in the Scrip- 
tures, their relations defined and their du- 
ties explained and enforced. There is not 
a conceivable distinction of classes or con- 
dition in society which is not recognized 
and provided for in the Scriptures ; such 
as the wise and the simple, the rich and the 
poor, the employer and the employed, the 
master and the servant, the sick and the 
well, the offended and the oSender, the crim- 
inal and the judge, the court and the par- 
ties. If the adaptation of the Scriptures to 
the wants of mankind as they are actually 
found, constituted the only argument in 
their favor, the Bible would still appear to 
be the most wonderful book the world ever 
saw ; but considered in connection with the 
other proofs of its inspiration, its origin is 
clearly divine. 

SECTION XI. 
The Success of Christianity. 

It is not pretended that the success of 
any system can prove it divine, aside from 
the circumstances that surround it, and the 
means it employs to extend itself ; but such 
were the circumstances that attended Chris- 
tianity, considered in connection with the 
means employed to propagate it, as to ren- 
der its rapid and great success conclusive 
evidence of its divine origin. To present 
the argument in its proper light, it is nec- 
essary to examine into the circumstances of 
its commencement, as well as to consider its 
success. 

1. Supposing it not to be divine, its com- 
mencement was the most unpromising. Its 
author was the reputed son of an obscure 
mechanic, and denying his divinity, his very 



60 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



existence, under the circumstances, was 
proof positive of the corruption and wick- 
edness of his parents. He grew up with- 
out education, as his enemies confessed that 
he had never learned letters. (John viii. 
15.) He was rejected by his own nation, 
and condemned as worthy of death, and was 
handed over to the Gentiles to be executed. 
He was crucified as an impostor and com- 
mon malefactor, a blasphemer, and sub- 
verter of the Jewish religion, and a traitor 
to the government of Caezar. He was bu- 
ried, and, denying his resurrection, which, 
if admitted, would prove him divine, his 
disciples came by night and stole his body, 
and placed it where it could never be found, 
and went and told a falsehood, that he was 
raised from the dead, and that they had 
seen him alive. So much for the author of 
Christianity. 
The first agencies employed to propagate 



Christianity were as linpromising as 



the 



author of the system, considering them as 
merely human instrumentalities. His first 
chosen ministers were twelve, all called 
from the common walks of life, uneducated, 
and one of these sold his master for thirty 
pieces of silver, and then went and commit- 
ted suicide. Another denied him with a 
profane oath, and all forsook him when he 
was arrested. This was certainly an un- 
promising band to subdue the mental and 
moral world into a belief in, and submission 
to Christianity. Themselves unlearned and 
poor, had to represent and defend a leader 
who had been condemned as a criminal and 
publicly executed. 

2. The nature of the doctrines they pro- 
claimed, considered in connection with the 
state of the world, greatly increased their 
embarrassment. So far as the Jews were 
concerned, they entertained the most deadly 
hostility to the gospel, and looked upon it 
as subversive of their long cherished relig- 
ion. They opposed it with the most bitter 
persecution, and sought to exterminate it 
by every possible means, and they com- 
manded all the learning, wealth and official 
influence of the nation aorainst it. 



So far as the Gentile world are concerned, 
they were idolaters, with a legalized relig- 
ion, and endowed temples and interested 
priests. Christianity met all the prejudices 
growing out of these institutions that stood 
up before them, crusted over with the ven- 
erable rust of antiquity, and waged an un- 
compromising war upon all their doctrines 
and forms of worship, and assailed their 
practices and morals as false, corrupt, dis- 
honorable to God, and ruinous to the souls 
of men. 

In a word, Christianity went forth in the 
hands of the little feeble party described, 
against the world, to withstand the force 
of its learning and wealth, they being un- 
learned and poor ; to resist its governments 
and arms, they being unprotected by law 
and unarmed for defense ; and to subvert 
its religion and reform its morals, being 
allowed to make no compromise, insisting 
upon the absolute submission of the world 
to its entire claims. 

3. Under all these discouraging circum- 
stances, the gospel triumphed, and swept 
over the land of the Jews, and hastened to 
enlightened heathen countries, so that in 
three hundred years it overrun the Koman 
Empire, subverted its ancient religion, and 
brought the Emperor who then held the 
sceptre of the world, to worship at its 
shrine, and to believe and preach the doc- 
trines of the cross. To suppose all this 
could be done by merely human instrumen- 
talities, entirely upon the voluntary princi- 
ple, is actually beyond the reach of human 
credulity. There is no way of evading the 
force of this argument ; not one of the 
alleged facts upon which it depends can 
be denied, and admitting them, the suc- 
cess of Christianity cannot be accounted 
for upon any other principle than that it is 
divine, and was attended by a supernatural 
influence. 

The conclusiveness of the argument is 
obvious from the only manner in which In- 
fidels have labored to weaken its force. 
Unable to assail it as untrue in any of its 
parts, they have contented themselves with 



CHAP. 11.] 



THE INSPIRATION OP THE SCRIPTURES. 



61 



an effort to produce a parallel, in which 
they have utterly failed. Could they find 
another instance of equal success, resulting 
from similar agencies, under like circum 
stances, it would greatly weaken if not de- 
stroy the argument, but a parallel case can- 
not be found in the history of the world 
The only case that has been produced is 
that of Mahomet, and it is so far from being 
a parallel, that it only proves that Infidelity 
must be pushed to the last extremity to 
bring it forward as an offset to the success 
of Christianity. A few facts will set this mat- 
ter all right, and make it plain to the reader. 

1. Christianity commenced in an enlight- 
ened age, and established itself and flourished 
most, in the most enlightened portions of 
the world ; while Mahomet commenced in 
an age of darkness and spread his conquests 
over unenlightened communities. 

He flourished early in the seventh cen- 
tury, when darkness had overspread the na- 
tions, 

2. Mahomet possessed great advantages 
over Christ in his family connections. He 
lost his parents, but was reared and educa- 
ted by a rich uncle, and married a very 
wealthy widow, by which he possessed all 
the influence that wealth could give him, 
and had powerful connections. 

3. Christ and Mahomet both commenced 
propagating their respective religions by 
moral suasion, or by arguments without 
force. Christ and his apostles made hun- 
dreds and thousands of converts ; three 
thousand were converted in one day at Jeru- 
salem. (Acts ii. 41,) and in a few days the 
number was increased to five thousand, 
(Acts iv. 4,) from which the number increas- 
ed daily by the addition of multitudes, both 
of men and women. (Acts v. 14.) Compare 
this with the success of Mahomet, who for 
the first seven years while he used only per- 
suasion, made only 101 converts to his reli- 
gion. The difference is absolutely annihi- 
lating to Infidelity. 

4. Christianity primitively resorted to 
none but peaceable means to enforce its 
principles ; facts and arguments were its 



only weapons for the first three hundred 
years of its career, during which time it 
overrun the eastern world, and Christianized 
the Koman Empire. 

But Mahomet, after a number of years 
of unsuccessful effort, during which he made 
101 converts, resorted to the sword, and 
ever after enforced his opinions by the power 
of arms, war and carnage ; exterminating 
all that would not submit, and embrace his 
creed. 

5. Jesus Christ insisted upon self-denial, 
and preached purity in heart and life, while 
Mahomet stimulated his followers to action 
by the promise of plunder and sensual in- 
dulgencies, allowing each of his disciples to 
have four wives, and to change them at 
pleasure, and promising all that fell in his 
cause, a paradise, the principal enjoyment 
of which should consist of the society of 
seventy-two immortal virgins, free from all 
natural impurities, defects and inconveni- 
ences incident to the sex in this world. To 
make it more certain to imagination, Maho- 
met declares that to prepare the faithful for 
the enjoyment of paradise, God will give to 
each the abilities of one hundred men. 

The reader must by this time be convin- 
ced that there is no parallel between Chris- 
tianity and Mahometanism, and that the 
success of the latter can prove or disprove 
nothing concerning the success of the for- 
mer, and Infidelity only exposes its own 
weakness, when it attempts to offset the one 
against the other. The success of Maho- 
metanism was the triumph of arms upon 
the battle field ; the success of Christianity 
was the triumph of moral influence, truth, 
peace and virtue. 



SECTION XII. 

TJie Influence of the Scriptures. 

Every tree is known by its fruit. Men 
do not " gather grapes of thorns, nor figs 
of thistles." So is it with truth and error. 
If it be a philosophical truth, that like pro- 



62 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



duces like, and that every cause produces an 
effect in nature similar to itself, the truth or 
falsehood of the Scriptures may be deter- 
mined by the nature of the influence they 
exert, and the effects they produce. If the 
Scriptures are false, if they are a vulgar lie, 
or a cunningly devised fable, they must pro- 
duce results in accordance with themselves, 
and human society must be corrupted and 
rendered vicious just in proportion as the 
people are led to embrace the Scriptures 
and are brought under their infl.uence. 

On the other hand, if the Scriptures are 
true, if they bear the impress of divinity, 
the effects they produce must be assimilated 
to truth, and must tend to reform and ele- 
vate human society, and must leave their 
own impress of divinity upon the human 
mind, just in proportion to the degree of in- 
telligence and faith with which they are em- 
braced. Let the Scriptures be tried by this 
standard, and the decision cannot be doubt- 
ful. 

It is proper to remark at this point, that 
the Scriptures are not to be charged with 
what they fail to accomplish, but only what 
they actually produce. They are not to be 
held accountable for the lives of those who 
profess to believe them, but only for such 
conduct as they countenance, or as the actor 
performs in consequence of believing them. 
They are not to be held responsible for any 
violations of their own precepts and spirit, 
but only for what is performed in conform- 
ity with their requisitions. 

The Scriptures themselves treat of men 
as moral agents, capable of receiving or 
rejecting them, of obeying or disobeying 
them. We all know that men often fail to 
do what they believe they ought to do, and 
often do that which they acknowledge they 
ought not to do. This shows that men may 
reject the Scriptures without making the 
Scriptures responsible for such rejection. 
They may also profess to believe them, when 
they do not believe them, and for that the 
Scriptures are not responsible. They may 
also really believe them to be true and yet 
not obey them, or they may profess to obey 



them, while they pervert them, construing 
the Scriptures to suit their conduct, and not 
shaping their conduct to suit the Scriptures. 
For none of these things can the Scrip- 
tures be held responsible, since they are all 
a violation of what they require, and since 
the principle that man, as a moral agent, 
may violate the law of right, is one of their 
fundamental doctrines. 

These remarks are necessary as a ground 
of defense against the repeated attacks of 
Infidels in relation to the imperfect lives of 
Christians. It is admitted that professed 
Christians have often done very wrong, in 
waging bloody wars and persecutions, in 
maintaining or helping to maintain the 
sceptre of oppression, as well as in delin- 
quencies of private life, but these are neither 
commanded or tolerated by Christianity, 
they do not result from Christianity, but 
from a want of conformity to it. In at- 
tempting to test the Scriptures by the ef- 
fects they produce, the only legitimate ques- 
tions are, what is their tendency, and what 
would be the state of things, if all men were 
conformed in heart and life to what they 
require. 

But we have to deal with facts. What 
has Chi'istianity done for mankind where it 
has prevailed, in comparison with Infidelity 
and all other kinds of religion. 

1. Look at the difference between those 
countries where Christianity exists in its 
greatest purity and efficiency, and those 
countries where it is unknown, and .the view 
presents an unanswerable argument in favor 
of Christianity. Literature and the arts 
and sciences have followed in the wake of 
Christianity, and flourish most where Chris- 
tianity flourishes most. Polite literature is 
confined to Christian lands at the present 
time, and all the useful arts, inventions and 
discoveries that constitute the wonders of 
this wonderful age, are brought out under 
the genial sun of Christianity, and advance- 
ment in all that is great and useful is most 
rapid where Christianity is least corrupted 
and least restrained. 

But look at the actual state of society, 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTUEES. 



63 



and examine into the social arrangements 
and the brightest spots on earth are where 
Christiaiiity sheds its hallowed influence, 
Where have we the most enlightened juris- 
prudence and most equitable laws but where 
Christianity prevails ? The fugitive slave 
law of 1850 is an exception ; it is a law 
which outrages the moral sensibilities of the 
people by whose government it was enacted, 
and is an excresence on a general system, 
which as a whole, this wicked law excepted, 
is not now and never was surpassed, under 
any human government, for intelligence and 
equal justice. This law, as well as the 
whole sanguinary slave code, is not the off- 
spring of Christianity, but the result of 
powerful counteracting influences, which 
have arrayed themselves against the equal 
justice and the law of love that distinguish 
the Gospel. 

Christianity abolished slavery throughout 
the Koman Empire ; it abolished domestic 
slavery in ancient Europe, has abolished 
African slavery wherever the British ban- 
ner waves, has abolished it in all the North- 
ern States of the American Union, and in 
Mexico, and has kindled a fire that will 
consume slavery from the land and the world. 
Slavery with the fugitive slave law, is not 
to be charged upon Christianity, it is one 
of the evils which Christianity has yet to 
remove, and which it will remove, unless 
slavery removes it. 

The same is true of war ; it is not the off- 
spring of Christianity, but is practiced in 
violation of the Gospel of peace. 

But while Christianity has not yet abol- 
ished war, it has greatly changed its charac- 
ter, and given it a milder aspect, and taught 
enemies in the field to treat their prisoners 
with humanity, and to restore them to their 
country, their homes and their friends, by ex- 
change, instead of putting them to the sword, 
or making slaves of them for life, and it 
will ultimately put an end to war. So it is 
seen that, notwithstanding these evils exist 
in Christian lands, human society presents 
a bright face, and a greater sum total of 
happiness under the influence of the gospel, 



than can be found anywhere on the wide 
world where it does not shine. 

To come back and resume the considera- 
tion of the actual state of society where 
Christianity prevails, we say it has abol- 
ished idolatry in every pagan country where 
it has established itself, and put an end to 
all the cruel rites connected with pagan 
altars and pagan worship. It has abolish- 
ed infanticide, and human sacrifices ; and 
taught children to care for and tenderly 
nourish their aged parents; it has estab- 
lished hospitals for the sick, alms houses 
for the poor, and schools for the instruction 
of the ignorant. It is a striking fact that 
these institutions are all confined to Chris- 
tian lands. Christia.nity has abolished po 
lygamy, and divorce within the universal 
Church, and has exalted the character of 
woman from the condition of a domestic 
slave, or from a mere instrument of gratifi- 
cation for her lord, to an equal, and has 
crowned her in her sphere, the centre of at- 
traction in, and the presiding spirit of her 
home of happiness. 

We need not pursue these general re- 
marks further, for no one will deny that 
where Christianity prevails, it elevates the 
standard of morality, and enlarges the cup 
of human happiness, to a degree unknown 
to any portion of the pagan or Mahomedan 
world. 

2. When we look at the influence of 
Christianity upon individuals, and witness 
its power in the formation of personal char- 
acter, and in developing personal morality 
and purity, the argument is equally clear 
and conclusive. Here, again, there may be 
exceptions ; hypocrites may be found among 
the professedly sanctified ; but they are only 
exceptions to the general rule. The com- 
parison is between those who believe, love 
and profess to obey the Scriptures, and 
those who reject, hate and oppose them. 
There can be no doubt as to the result of 
such a comparison. All openly wicked and 
corrupt men neglect, if not hate and oppose 
the Scriptures ; while all truly good and 
benevolent men are readers and believers of 



64 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



[book I. 



the Scriptures, and tliose who love and ad- 
mire the Scriptures most, are the best social 
and moral beings, and do most good to their 
fellow beings. If there are exceptions, they 
are so rare as not in any degree to effect the 
general rule. A smgle fact must be suffi- 
cient to settle this question, beyond the 
power of contradiction or doubt, viz. : Men 
always reform in morals, when they aban- 
don Infidelity and scepticism, and embrace 
the Scriptures as a standard of religious 
faith and practice ; while on the other hand, 
men never improve in morals when they re- 
nounce the Scriptures and embrace Infideli- 
ty, but generally, if not always, retrograde 
in morals, and frequently become entirely 
abandoned. This settles the question of the 
tendencies of the Scriptures. 

To be a little more specific, the most dis- 
tinguished Christians who have done most 
to promote Christianity, have led the most 
harmless, useful and pure lives, and died the 
most peaceful and hopeful death : while 
those who have been most distinguished for 
their Infidelity, and have done most to pro- 
mote it, and to oppose the Scriptures, have 
lived the most profligate and abandoned 
lives, and died the most miserable deaths. 
Let us glance at the views of a few of the 
most distinguished Infidels. 

Lord Herbert, declares that lust or pas- 
sion are no more blameworthy than thirst 
or hunger. Hobbes, the celebrated Infidel, 
said that right and wrong are mere quibbles 
of men's imaginations, and that there is no 
real distinction between them. Lord Bolin- 
broke, asserted that the chief end of man 
was to gratify his lusts and passions, that 
he was so made, and that when he gratified 
these he got his greatest happiness. Hume, 
declares that self-denial and humility were 
positive vices, and that adultery rather ele- 
vated than degraded the human character. 
Rosseau, taught that whatever man feels, 
is right. Paine, the gross blasphemer, was 
a drunkard. Yoltaire, advocated the 
very depths of the lowest possible sensu- 
ality. 
These are the men, whose works are the stand 



ard of Infidelity, being republished and cir- 
culated to enlighten and reform the world. 

But how did these men die? Not as 
the Christian dies, whose end is peace. 
Yoltaire, during his last sickness, sent for 
Dr. Trochin, who, when he came, found him 
in the greatest agony, exclaiming with the 
utmost horror, " I am abandoned by God 
and man." He then said, " Oh ! Doctor, I 
will give you half of what I am worth, if 
you will give me six month's life." The 
Do-ctor answered, " you cannot live six 
weeks." Yoltaire replied, " then I shall go 
to hell." He was the subject of the deepest 
anguish during his last hours, and would 
alternately blaspheme God, and cry out, 
" Oh, Jesus Christ," and complain that he 
was abandoned of God and man. Finally, 
after spending his life in the most bitter op- 
position to Christianity, using the expres- 
sion, " crush the wretch," as a motto, just 
before he died, amid his horrid blasphemies, 
and his anguish and terrors, he sent for a 
Roman Priest to administer to him the 
sacrament. 

Mirabeau, died calling out " Give me more 
laudanum, that I may not think of eternity, 
and of what is to come." Hobbs, the Athe- 
ist, said in his dying hour, " I am now about 
to take a leap in the dark." Paine, is known 
to have died drunk and swearing. 

How unlike these Infidel deaths, is the 
death of Christians, who have the conscious- 
ness in the dying hour of having lived up to the 
standard of the religion they have professed. 
Stephen said, "Lord Jesus receive my spirit." 
St. Paul said, " I have fought a good fight, 
I have finished my course, I have kept the 
faith ; henceforth there is laid up for me a 
crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the 
righteous Judge, shall give me at that day." 
Mr. Wesley said, as he left the world, " The 
best of all is, God is with us." Dr. Pay- 
son said, " The battle is fought, the battle 
is fought, the victory is won." It is worthy 
of remark, that Infidels have often aban- 
doned their infidelity at the approach of 
death, but no Christian ever abandoned 
Christianity in his last hours, it becomes 



CHAP. II.] 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



65 



more precious as he enters the dark valley 
and approaches the jaws of death ; it causes 
the throat of death itself to flash with the 
light of immortality, as the passage way to 
an endless life. 

Infidelity has never been very fruitful in 
poetry, yet it has left us a poetic expression 
of its views and feelings, from the pen of 
Lord Byron, a man of transcendant abilities, 
but corrupt principles and profligate life. 

The following lines were written by him 
at the close of life : 

" Though gay companions o'er the bowl 

Dispel awhile the sense of ill, 
Though pleasure fills the madd'ning soul, 

The heart — the heart is lonely still. 

" Aye, but to die, and go, alas ! 

Where all have gone, and all must go ; 
To be the nothing that I was. 

Ere bom to life and living woe ! 

" Count o'er the joys thine hours have seen, 
Count o'er thy days from anguish free ; 

And know, whatever thou hast been, 
Tis something better not to be. 



" Nay, for myself, so dark my fate 

Through every turn of life hath been, 
Man and the world so much I hate, 
I care not when I quit the scene." 
In the above lines. Infidelity gives its ex- 
perience of life, and its prospect in view of 
death, robed in poetry ; and in contrast with 
it, we give the following views of a re- 
claimed Infidel, under the influence of his 
new faith in Christianity, with which we 
close our argument for the inspiration of 
the Scriptures. If any one inclined to 
scepticism, has read the argument through, 
we hope he may now adopt the words of 
the poet, as expressive of his own mental 
state. 

" And darkness and doubt are now flying away. 
No longer I roam in conjecture forloi-n ; 

So breaks on the traveler faint and astray, 
The bright and the balmy eflFulgence of morn. 

' See truth, love, and mercy in triumph descend- 
ing. 
And nature all glowing in Eden's first bloom ! 
On the cold cbeek of death, smiles and roses are 
blending. 
And beauty immortal awakes from the tomb " 



66 



THE EXISTENCE OP GOD, YIEWED 



[book II. 



BOOK II 



THE DOCTRINES OF THE SCRIPTURES 



CHAPTER I. 

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD VIEWED IN THE 
LIGHT OF THE SCRIPTURES. 

If the Scriptures contain a revelation of 
the will of God, as was proved in the pre- 
ceding book, then God must exist. By 
proving the inspiration of the Scriptures, the 
existence of the divine source of inspiratioD 
has been established, just as certainly as the 
existence of a cause is proved, when we 
have established, beyond doubt, the truth 
of the existence of the effects of such cause. 
To attempt a labored effort, therefore, to 
prove the existence of God from the Scrip- 
tures, would be to prove what is already as 
certainly true, as the evidence by which we 
propose to prove it. No argument drawn 
from the Scriptures can make the existence 
of God more certain than it is, for it is now 
just as certain that God exists, as it is that 
the Scriptures are a revelation from God. 
The only time to attempt a demonstration 
of the existence of God, is prior to the es- 
tablishment of the inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures, and for this demonstration the reader 
is referred to the opening chapter of this 
work. 

By some, it is denied that man would ever 
infer the existence of God from the visible 
creation, without a first suggestion from 
some mind other than his own. This may 
present a point well calculated to excite 
inquiry by the curious, but it can be of no 
practical importance, after the truth of the 
Scriptures has been established. The in- 
quiry is, concerning what would or would 
not transpire under a state of things Avhich 
does not and cannot exist. It is admitted 



by Mr. Watson, who belabors the affirma- 
tive of the question, that the human mind 
is clearly capable of demonstrating the ex- 
istence of God, from the visible creation, a 
posteriori, after the first thought that there 
is a God has been suggested. It is not 
necessary for us to affirm that the human 
mind can demonstrate the existence of God 
without the suggestion of such first thought, 
from the simple fact that it cannot be proved 
that such first thought is not, in some way, 
suggested to every rational human being. 
It is held by most theologians, that man is 
naturally a devotional being ; that even amid 
the ruins of the fall, there springs religious 
feeling from the elements of his nature, and 
that he is inclined to worship something. 
If this be so, who can say that it is not the 
result of the religious constitution which 
God gave to man when he created him, 
which sin has not been able to destroy, 
though it has diverted it from its proper 
centre of attraction to the worship of dev- 
ils ; and who can say how much of the 
original impress which God left of his own 
existence upon the human soul when he 
formed it, still lingers in this religious na- 
ture, which is calculated to suggest the 
tliought of a higher power, even amid its 
blind devotions at the altar of an " unknown 
God." 

But what may have more force, is the 
fact that no one can prove that the spirit of 
God, does not so move upon the mind, as to 
lead to the conception of that first thought 
that there is a God. This, perhaps, may 
be inferred from the language of the apos- 
tle, Rom. i. 19, 20 : " That which may be 
known of God is manifest in them ; for 
God hath showed it unto them. For the 



CHAP. I.] 



IN THE LIGHT OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



67 



invisible things of him from the creation of 
the world are clearly seen, being understood 
by the things that are made, even his eter- 
nal power and Godhead ; so that they are 
without excuse." Again, chap. ii. 14, 15 : 
" For when the Gentiles, which have not 
the law, do by nature the things contained 
in the law, these, having not the law, are a 
law unto themselves. Which show the 
work of the law written in their hearts, 



their conscience also bearing witness, and 
their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or 
else excusing one another." As this is said 
of the heathen who are destitute of a writ- 
ten revelation, it implies that at least that 
first thought of the existence of God is in 
some way suggested to their minds, and 
having the first suggestion, it is admitted 
that they can demonstrate the existence of 
God from his works. 

But what is most conclusive on this 
point, is the fact that it can never be proved 
that the first thought of the existence of 
God is not communicated to all men by tra- 
dition. We find all nations in possession 
of some idea of a supreme Creator, some 
great spirit, some over-ruling Providence, 
and this may have been handed down from 
Adam to Noah, and from Noah to all suc- 
ceeding nations, as his sons spread them- 
selves over the face of the world. 

But the simple existence of God, and 
clear and correct views of God, of his at- 
tributes and character, are two things ; men 
may possess a tolerably clear faith in the 
simple existence of God, while they are 
dark indeed on the subject of his mode of 
existence, and his character a,nd attributes. 
Having then established the inspiration of 
the Scriptures, it is proper to inquire what 
they teach concerning God. 

The Scriptures take it for granted that 
there is a God, and that it is understood 
that there is a God, instead of proceeding 
to reveal it as a new truth not before 
known. When God declares himself, it is 
not so mach a revelation that he is, as a 
revelation of who he is, and what he is. It 
will be found on a careful examination o 



the sacred pages, that men often assert that 
God is, but God does not assert his own ex- 
istence ; when he speaks, he takes his own 
existence for granted, and declares what he 
is, and what his will and purposes are. A 
few examples will be sufficient to make this 
truth plain. 

The sacred record does not open with an 
announcement of the fundamental truth 
that there is a God, but with an announce- 
ment of what God did, without affirming 
his existence. " In the beginning God cre- 
ated the heavens and the earth." Here it 
is taken for granted that there is a God, 
and that this truth is understood. If the 
Scriptures were intended to reveal the sim- 
ple fact that there is a God, this would have 
been an appropriate occasion for making 
the first announcement, and the record 
might have opened thus : — " God is, and 
was, and ever shall be." As it is taken for 
granted that there is a God, in the first sen- 
tence of the inspired page, by announcing 
the heavens and the earth as the work of 
his hands, so this fundamental truth contin- 
ues to be taken for granted throughout the 
record, the Scriptures nowhere asserting 
the divine existence as an abstract truth. 
The first announcement of the name of God 
in connection with Noah, is that " God saw 
the wickedness of man was great in the 
earth." Gen, vi. 5 : The first revelation 
which God made to Abraham, is recorded 
thus : " Now the Lord had said unto 
Abram, get thee out of thy country." Gen. 
xii. 1 : The first announcement which God. 
made of himself to Moses, was in these 
words : " I am the God of thy fathers, the 
God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the 
God of Jacob." The language assumes it to 
be understood that there was such a God, 
Isaiah opens his sublime predictions thus : 
" Hear heavens, and give ear, earth, for 
the Lord hath spoken." God often declares 
that he is the God, in contradistinction from 
idols or imaginary gods ; he often declares 
that he is a God of specific character or at- 
tributes ; and often denies the existence of 
f other gods, or asserts that there is no God 



68 



THE ATTRIBUTES OP GOD. 



[book II. 



like unto him, or beside him, but he does not 
assert his existence as a new and abstract 
truth to be believed ; and the displays of 
power, and majesty, and glory, in connec- 
tion with the revelation he has given us, 
were not so much designed to convince man- 
kind that there is a God, as to convince them 
that it was God that spake. 

But while the Scriptures take the simple 
existence of God for granted, assuming in 
every communication to men, that they al- 
ready have some knowledge of him, his at- 
tributes and character are made the frequent 
subjects of direct revelation. The Scrip- 
tures appear designed, not so much to teach 
men the simple fact that there is a God, as 
to correct their false views concerning him, 
and to reveal to them what he is. We may 
take for example the address of Paul to the 
Athenian idolaters, Acts xvii. 23-29 : " Ye 
men of Athens, I perceive that in all things 
ye are too superstitious. For as I passed 
by, and beheld your devotions, I found an 
altar with this inscription, TO THE UN- 
KNOWN GOD. Whom therefore, ye igno- 
rantly worship, him declare I unto you 
God, that made the world, and all things 
therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven 
and earth, dwells not in temples made with 
hands. Neither is worshipped with men's 
hands, as though he needed anything, seeing 
he giveth to all life, and breath, and all 
things. And hath made of one blood all 
nations of men, for to dwell on all the face 
of the earth, and hath determined the times 
before appointed, and the bounds of their 
habitation. That they should seek the Lord, 
if haply they might feel after him, and find 
him, though he be not far from every one of 
us. For in him we live, and move, and have 
our being ; as certain also of your own po- 
ets have said. For we are also his offspring. 
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of 
God, we ought not to think that the God- 
head is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, 
graven by art and man's device." 

In this discourse the apostle talks of the 
existence of God as a truth understood, 
though he was discoursing to many who ap- 



pear to have been worshippers of idols ; but 
he charges home upon them their ignorance 
of the mode of the divine existence, and of 
the divine attributes and character. We 
propose, then, to inquire what the Scriptures 
teach concerning God, that we may under- 
stand his character. 

What do the Scriptures teach concerning 
the attributes and character of God ? is an 
important question. This question opens 
the very fountain of all theology, and the 
answer must give character and tone to re- 
ligion, for religion must be like its source, 
and must tend to make the devotional like 
the God they worship, in proportion to the 
clearness of their conceptions of his charac- 
ter, and the intensity of the devotion they 
render to him. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE CHARACTER AND ATTRIBUTES OP GOD. 
SECTION I. 

The Spirituality of God. 

It may not be possible to understand 
fully what a spirit is, but this constitutes 
no objection to the doctrine of the spirituality 
of the divine nature. If the fact that we 
cannot understand a substance or essence, is 
an objection to its existence, nothing can 
be allowed to exist, for we cannot compre- 
hend the essence of matter. We know 
matter by certain phenomena it exhibits, 
and we may know spirit in the same way. 
Matter is that which possesses the proper- 
ties of impenetrability, extension, figure, 
divisibility, inertia, attraction, &c. Spirit 
is that which exhibits none of these prop- 
erties, but which thinks, and performs all 
the operations of intelligence, and possesses 
inherent powers of action, without being 
first acted upon. If there be a God, he 
must be a spirit, for to affirm that he is 



CHAP. II.] 



THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 



69 



matter, would be to deny to him every es- 
sential attribute of wliicli it is possible to 
conceive as belonging to his nature, the 
impress of which is everywhere stamped 
upon his works. Operative power, wisdom, 
and universal presence, clearly do not be- 
long to matter, but can belong only to 
spirit, which must be superior to and per- 
vade all matter. But what does the Bible 
teach ? is the question. 

John iv. 24 : " God is a spirit." While 
we may not be able to comprehend fully 
what the Saviour meant by spirit, nothing 
can be more certain than that he used the 
term in contradistinction from matter, and 
consequently he denied that God is matter, 
and asserted that he is something different 
from matter, which he calls spirit. But 
there are other texts which teach the spirit- 
uality of the divine nature, 2 Cor. iii. 17 : 
*' The Lord is that spirit." Every .text 
which speaks of the spirit of God and its 
operations, teaches the spirituality of the 
divine nature. Gen. i. 2 : " The spirit of 
God moved upon the face of the waters." 
Gen. vi. 3 : " My spirit shall not always 
strive with man ;" Joel ii. 28 : "I will 
pour out my spirit upon all flesh." Eom. 
viii. 9 : "If so be that the spirit of God 
dwell in you ;" 1 Cor. iii. 16 : " The 
spirit of God dwelleth in you." Eph. iv. 
30 : " Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God ;" 
1 Peter iv. 14 : '' The spirit of God rest- 
eth upon you." Those texts which affirm 
that God is invisible, by implication at 
least, teach that he is a spirit. Job xxiii. 
8, 9 : " Behold I go forward, but he is not 
there, and backward, but I cannot perceive 
him ; on the left hand where he doth work, 
but I cannot behold him ; he hideth him- 
self on the right hand, that I cannot see 
hira." Col. i. 15 : " Who is the image of 
the invisible God." 1 Tim. i. 17 : " Unto 
the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the 
only wise God." These texts, by asserting 
that God is invisible, clearly teach his spir- 
ituality. 



SECTION II. 
The Eternity of God. 

That God is eternal, that is, always ex- 
isted, and always will exist, is most clearly 
asserted. Gen. xxi. 33 : "And Abraham 
called there on the name of the Lord, 
the everlasting God." This text undoubt- 
edly refers to the past as well as to the 
future, and implies that God always was, 
just as clearly as it does that he always 
shall be ; and that he is from everlast- 
ing as well as to everlasting. Dr. Adam 
Clarke renders it, " The Eternal One." 
Deut. xxxiii. 27 : "The eternal God is thy 
refuge." These are among the last words 
of Moses, and were uttered under the in- 
fluence of inspiration. Psal. xc. 2 : " Be- 
fore the mountains were brought forth, or 
ever thou hadst formed the earth and the 
world, even from everlasting to everlasting 
thou art God." This text teaches the eter- 
nity of God as clearly as words can convey 
the idea. Isaiah Ivii. 15 ; " Thus saith the 
high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, 
whose name is holy." Eev. iv. 8 : " Holy, 
holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, 
and is, and is to come." The obvious mean- 
ing of this text is, that God always was, 
and always will be, and of course, is eternal. 

SECTION III. 

'File Omnipotence of God. 

The Scriptures teach beyond a shadow of 
doubt, that God is omnipotent, or in other 
words, that he is possessed of almighty 
power. Only a few of the many texts on 
the subject need be adduced. Gen. xvii. 1 : 
" I am the almighty God." Exo. vi. 3: " I ap- 
peared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and nnto 
Jacob, by the name of God Almighty." 
Mark x. 27 : " With God all things are pos- 
sible." 2 Cor. vi. 18 : "I will be a father 
unto you, and ye shall be my sons and 
daugliters, saith the Lord Almighty." Eev. 
iv. 8 : '' Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Al- 
mighty." Eev. XV. 3 : " And they sing the 
song of Moses the servant of God, and the 



70 



THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 



Bong of the Lamb, saying, great and mar 
vellous are thy works. Lord God Ahnighty." 
Rev. xix. 6 : *' The Lord God omnipotent 
reigneth." These plain declarations, to 
which many more might be added, are suffi- 
cient to show that the Bible teaches the 
doctrine that God is omnipotent, or pos- 
sessed of Almighty power. 

SECTION IV. 

The Omnipresence of God. 

That God exists in all places, and fills all 
space, is most clearly taught in the Scrip- 
tures. 1 Kings viii. 27 : " But will God in- 
deed dwell with men on the earth ? Behold, 
heaven, and the heaven of heavens can- 
not contain thee." Psal. cxxxix. 7-10 : 
*' "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit ? or 
whither shall I flee from thy presence ? If 
I ascend up into heaven, thou art there ; if 
I make my bed in hell, behold thou art 
there. If I take the wings of the morning, 
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea ; 
even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy 
right hand shall hold me." Jer.xxiii. 24: "Do 
not I fill heaven and earth ? saith the Lord." 
Eph. i. 23 : " The fullness of him that filleth 
all in all." 

Thfe doctrine of the Divine omnipresence 
is clearly implied in all those Scriptures 
which promise the divine presence to indi- 
viduals who trust and worship God in all 
parts of the world at the same time. The 
doctrine is absolutely essential to the idea of 
worship, for worship is supposed to be per- 
formed in the presence of, and offered to the 
object of devotion, hence God cannot be 
worshipped where he is not. 

SECTION Y. 

The Omniscience of God. 

It is very wonderful that any believer in the 
Scriptures, should have ever intimated that 
it is possible that God may not know all 
things, with perfect and absolute knowledge. 
Dr. A. Clarke appears to us to have done 



[BOOK II. 

this in his notes on Acts, chap, ii., in fine. 
His language is, "As God's omnipotence im- 
plies his power to do all things, so God's 
omniscience implies his power to know all 
things. Though God can do all things, he 
does not do all things. God is omniscient, 
and can know all things ; but does it follow 
from this that he must know all things ?" 
This brief extract presents the substance of 
the whole of Dr. Clarke's argument ; and it 
has always appeared to us unworthy of its 
distinguished author, whose commentaries, 
as a whole, we consider the best of which 
we have any knowledge. Without going into 
a labored argument in review, I will only 
very briefly state two objections to the view 
here given. 

1. The supposition that the omniscience 
of God does not imply that he knows all 
things, rests wholly upon a comparison be- 
tween omnipotence and omniscience, which 
comparison is without foundation, and en- 
tirely false. There is no analogy between 
pov/er and knowledge ; and any argument 
founded upon the supposed resemblance of 
the one to the other, must be fallacious. 
Power consists simply in an ability to do 
or perform, not in actually doing ; the most 
powerful man often does least ; but know- 
ledge consists in actually knowing, not in 
the capacity to know ; hence, it cannot be 
said that the most knowing man may know 
least, as the most powerful man often does 
least. A man is powerful in proportion to 
his ability to perform, but a man is not wise 
in proportion to what he is capable of know- 
ing, but in proportion to what he does ac- 
tually know. The same must be true of 
God. To be omnipotent it is only neces- 
sary that he should be capable of doing all 
things ; but to render him omniscient it 
is necessary that he should actually know 
all things. 

2. The supposition that God is omnis- 
cient, because he has power to know all 
things, while he chooses not to know all 
things, and actually does not know some 
things, because he chooses not to know 
them, involves the absurdity that God acts 



CHAP. II.] 



THE ATTEIBUTES OP GOD. 



71 



in ignorance of the thing concerning which 
he acts, or acts without a reason. To sup- 
pose that God chooses to know some things. 
and chooses not to know some other things, 
implies that he knows nothing until he 
chooses to know. Now as this implies that 
he must be alike ignorant of all things, until 
he chooses to know some things, his choice 
must be made before knowing, and how God 
can choose to know some things of which 
as yet, he has no knowledge, must be diffi 
cult to under sand. If God be alike igno- 
rant of two things, there can be no reason 
why he should choose to know the one, and 
not to know the other. He must know 
them both before he can have a reason for 
choosing to know the one, and not to know 
the other. In a word, it amounts to this, 
God must know a thing before he can have 
a reason for choosing to know it ; and he 
must know a thing before he can have a 
reason for choosing not to know it. 

Thus does this theory which makes the 
divine prescience depend upon an act of vo- 
lition, contradict and destroy itself. 

An appeal to the Scriptures will settle the 
question. 

1 Sam. ii. 3 : " Talk no more so exceed 
ing proudly ; let not arrogancy come out 
of your mouth ; for the Lord is a God 
of knowledge, and by him actions are 
weighed." 

Job. xxi. 22 : " Shall any teach God 
knowledge? seeing he judgeth those that 
are high ;" xxviii. 24 : " For he looketh to 
the ends of the earth, and seeth under the 
whole heaven." 

Ps. cxxxix. 1-6 : " Lord, thou hast 
searched me and known me. Thou know- 
est my down-sitting and mine up-rising ; thou 
understandest my thought afar off. Thou 
compassest my path, and my lying down, 
and art acquainted with all my ways. For 
there is not a word in my tongue, but lo, 
Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thou 
hast beset me behind and before, and laid 
thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is 
too wonderful for me ; it is high, I cannot 
attain unto it." Cxlvii. 5 : " Great is our 



Lord, and of great power ; his understand- 
ing is infinite." 

Prov. V. 21 : " For the ways of man are 
before the eyes of the Lord, and he ponder- 
eth all his goings." 

Dan. ii. 22 : " He revealeth the deep and 
secret things ; he knoweth what is in the 
darkness, and the light dwelleth with him." 

Acts XV. 18 : " Known unto God are all 
his works from the beginning of the world." 

Rom. xi. 33-36 : " 0, the depth of the 
riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge 
of God ! how unsearchable are his judg- 
ments, and his ways past finding out ! For 
who hath known the mind of the Lord ? or 
who hath been his counsellor? Or hath 
first given to him, and it shall be recom- 
pensed unto him again ? For of him, and 
through him, and to him, are all things ; to 
whom be glory for ever. Amen." 

The above passages from the Holy Scrip- 
tures, are among the most decisive texts, 
and we think must be sufficient to settle the 
question beyond a doubt. If " his under- 
standing is infinite ;" if he " understandeth 
our thoughts afar off;" if he is " acquaint- 
ed with all our ways ;" if there is " not a 
word in our tongue but he knoweth it alto- 
gether ;" if " the ways of man are before 
the eyes of the Lord, and he pondereth all 
his goings ;" if he " knoweth what is in the 
darkness, and if the light dwelleth with him," 
and if " known unto God are all his works 
from the beginning of the world," then is he 
omniscient, allwise, knowing all things. 



SECTION VI. 

The Jmmutability of God. 

Before attempting to prove that God is 
immutable, it may be well to state briefly, 
what is meant by immutability. Immutar 
bility is that perfection of the divine nature, 
which renders God eternally unchangeable. 
God is immutable in his nature or essence, 
in all his attributes, in his purposes, in his 
promises, and in his threatenings. This 
immutability, however is not to be so un- 



72 



THE ATTRIBUTES OP GOD. 



[book II. 



derstood as to allow of no change or vari- 
ety in the divine administration, it absolute- 
ly requires change, as changes take place in 
the moral agents who are the subjects of 
such administration. The iramutabihty of 
God supposes him to remain the same in his 
own nature, and always to act the same, in 
view of the same moral character and con- 
dition of his subjects, while it necessarily 
supposes a change in conduct towards them, 
as they change from bad to good, or from 
good to bad. It is a settled principle of 
the divine administration to punish sinners, 
and to save the pious ; and it is said of the 
sinner that " the wrath of God abideth on 
him." Suppose then that the sinner repents 
and turns to God with purpose of heart, 
the wrath of God ceases to abide on him, 
and he enjoys the divine favor. Suppose, 
also, a righteous man to turn away from his 
righteousness, and he ceases to enjoy the di- 
vine favor, and the wrath of God now abi- 
deth on him. Here is a change in the di- 
vine administration, relatively towards these 
two persons, but no real change in the prin- 
ciples of the administration, for it is immu- 
tably settled, to treat such characters as 
they were treated before the change, and as 
they are now treated since the change ; they 
have changed, and of course, respectively 
fall under different principles of the divine 
administration, while God and the princi- 
ples of his administration remain the same, 
When a sinner turns from his sin, and a 
righteous man turns from his righteousness, 
God would have to change to continue to 
treat them the same ; but as he changeth 
not, they must experience a diflFerent admin 
istration at his hand, according to the 
change which they have undergone. This 
view of God, and his government, is fully 
sustained by the Scriptures. One quotation 
on this point will be sufficient. 

Ezekiel xxxiii. 12-15 : " Therefore, thou 
son of man, say unto the children of thy 
people, The righteousness of the righteous 
shall not deliver him in the day of his trans- 
gression : as for the wickedness of the 
wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day 



that he turneth from his wickedness ; neith- 
er shall the righteous be able to live for his 
righteousness in the day that he sinneth. 
When I shall say to the righteous, that he 
shall surely live ; if he trust to his own 
righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his 
righteousness shall not be remembered ; but 
for his iniquity that he hath committed, he 
shall die for it. Again, when I say unto 
the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he 
turn from his sin, and do that which is law- 
ful and right ; If the wicked restore the 
pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk 
in the statutes of life, without committing 
iniquity ; he shall surely live, he shall not 
die," 

After this explanation of what is meant 
by the immutability of God, we are prepared 
to establish the truth of the doctrine, that 
God is eternally unchangeable. 

Num. xxiii. 19 : " God is not a man, that 
he should lie ; neither the son of man that 
he should repent ; hath he said, and shall he 
not do it ; or hath he spoken, and shall he 
not make it good ?" 

1 Sam. XV. 29 : " And also the strength 
of Israel will not lie, nor repent ; for he is 
not a man that he should repent." 

Ps. cii, 27 : " Thou art the same, and thy 
years shall have no end." 

Mai. iii. 6 : " I am the Lord. I change 
not." 

Heb. vi. 18 : '' That by two immutable 
things, in which it was impossible for God 
to lie, we might have a strong consolation 
who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon 
the hope set before us." 

The two immutable things are the prom- 
ise of God, and the oath of God. But these 
could not be immutable, if God was not 
himself immutable. 

James i. 17: " Every good gift, and every 
perfect gift, is from above, and cometh 
down from the Father of lights, with whom 
is no variableness, neither shadow of turn- 
ing." 



CHAP. II.l 



THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 



n 



SECTION VII. 

The Justice of God. 

The justice of God is that perfection of 
the divine nature, whence arises the abso- 
lute rectitude of his moral government. 
Justice is that virtue which consists in ren- 
dering to all what is required by the law of 
absolute right. 

1. The justice of God may be said to re- 
gard himself. He is just in his own nature, 
and to himself, acting in all things in per- 
fect harmony with all the attributes of his 
nature. Justice is not to be regarded as an 
attribute by itself, opposed to the other at- 
tributes of the divine nature, but allowing 
the perfections of God to be the standard 
of right, so that what accords with them 
is right ; and so that what does not accord 
with them is wrong ; Justice decrees and 
enforces that only which is in harmony with 
the whole. 

2. The justice of God is developed in the 
system of moral Government which he has 
established. He has decreed in the estab- 
lishment of his moral system, all that is 
right and just, and nothing that is wrong 
and unjust ; and all his laws are made con- 
formable to the justice of his own nature. 

3. The justice of God is further devel- 
oped in the administration of his govern- 
ment. He practically does what is just, 
and will ultimately render to every moral 
agent of his government, a reward in per- 
fect accordance with the just laws he has 
established, so that when the destiny of each 
and all shall be settled by a final decision, 
and their conduct and ultimate allotment 
shall be reviewed in the light which eter- 
nity will shed on what may now appear 
dark, divine justice will be fully vindicated 
in view of an intelligent universe. That 
this is the doctrine of the Scriptures, a few 
texts will be sufficient to show. 

Deut. xxxii. 4 : "He is the Eock, his 
work is perfect ; for all his ways are judg- 
ment : a God of truth and without iniquity ; 
just and right is he." 



Ps. Ixxxix. 14 : " Justice and judgment 
are the habitation of thy throne ; mercy 
and truth shall go before thy face." 

Isa. xlv. 21 : " There is no God else be- 
side me ; a just God and a Saviour." 

Ps. xix. 8, 9 : " The statutes of the 
Lord are right, rejoicing the heart : the 
commandment of the Lord is pure, enlight- 
ening the eyes : The fear of the Lord is 
clean, enduring forever : the judgments of 
the Lord are true and righteous altogether." 

Eom. vii. 12 : " Wherefore the law is 
holy, and just, and good." 

Exo. xxiii. 7 : " Keep thee far from a 
false matter ; and the innocent and righte- 
ous slay thou not ; for I will not justify 
the wicked." 

Prov. xxiv. 12 : " Shall he not render to 
every man according to his works ?" 

Eom. ii. 6 : " Who will render to every 
man according to his deeds." 

Eev. XV. 3 : " And they sing the song of 
Moses the servant of God, and the song of 
the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous 
are thy works, Lord God Almighty ; just 
and true are thy ways, thou king of saints." 

Eev. xxii. 12 : " Behold I come quickly ; 
and my reward is with me, to give unto 
every man according as his work shall be." 

SECTION VIII. 

The Goodness, Love, Benevolence and Mercy 
of God. 

The Goodness, Love, Benevolence and 
Mercy of God are grouped together, be- 
cause they are regarded as modified ex- 
pressions of essentially the same moral ele- 
ment of the divine nature. The term good- 
ness of God, if used in a general sense, 
would denote universal rectitude, and com- 
prehend every moral element of the divine 
nature ; but when it is used to express a 
specific attribute of God, as it often is, in 
contradistinction from justice and holiness, 
it denotes benevolence, or that disposition 
of the divine mind which communicates 
good to others, and seeks to promote the 



74 



THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 



[book II. 



greatest happiness of all. The same thing 
is meant by the love of God. The apostle 
says that " God is love," (1 John iv. 8, 16,) 
but we do not understand by this, that he 
meant to affirm that love is to be contra- 
distinguished from goodness or benevolence, 
or that it any more constitutes the essence 
of the divine nature, than power, justice or 
holiness. God is love, and so he is wisdom, 
power, justice and holiness. The apostle 
also affirms (1 John 1. 5,) that " God is 
light," but it does not prove that light is 
any more an element of his nature than 
goodness or hohness ; and so when he 
affirms that " God is love," it only means 
that love or benevolence is one of the ele- 
ments of his nature, or that he is essentially 
benevolent. Love and goodness cannot be 
contradistinguished, as distinct attributes, 
manifested in two distinct classes of actions. 
The same acts of the divine administration 
may be attributed to either love or good- 
ness, as the taste of the writer or speaker 
may dictate. " God so loved the world 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
whosoever belie veth in him might not per- 
ish, but have everlasting life ;" and yet it 
would be no perversion of language or 
sense to affirm that God's gift of his Son 
was an act of goodness. 

But love is sometimes distinguished from 
goodness, by being used in a more specijBc 
sense, as when it is used as the antithesis of 
hatred. Also when it is used philosophi- 
cally, to denote particular mental states or 
emotions, which being analyzed, present 
different kinds and degrees of love. Good- 
ness is a general term, and when applied to 
God, denotes his universal rectitude, or 
specifically his benevolence or disposition 
to do good and dispense happiness. But 
the love of God, as the term is used in the 
gospel, denotes still more specifically his 
special goodness to mankind, manifested 
through Jesus Christ. But here it may be 
subdivided, and rendered still more specific. 
The term goodness or i enevolence, ex- 
presses that quality in the divine nature,, 
.-which is the fountain whence all practical 



love, grace and mercy flow. When it is 
said that God so loved the world that he 
gave his only begotten Son, the meaning is, 
that he was moved by the goodness of his 
own nature to redeem mankind. But it 
would not be true to say that God loved 
the world, or that he loves impenitent sin- 
ners, in the same sense, or in so Ml a sense 
as he loves those who love and obey him. 

1. Benevolence or goodness, or a dispo- 
sition to promote another's happiness, is an 
essential element of love, or is love itself, 
in the sense in which God loved the world, 
and in which he now loves sinners. But 
this love is not opposed to anger, but is 
consistent with it, for God is angry with 
the wicked every day," (Psa. vii. 11,) at 
the same time he loves them. But this 
universal love of benevolence is not the an- 
tithesis of hatred, for God actually hates 
the wicked, while he loves them with the 
love of benevolence. Psalm v. 5 : " The 
foolish shall not stand in thy sight : thou 
hatest all workers of iniquity." Psalm xi. 
5 : " The Lord trieth the righteous : but 
the wicked and him that loveth violence 
his soul hateth." Prov. vi. 16, 17, 18 : 
" These six things the Lord hateth ; a lying 
tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood ; 
a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, 
feet that be swift in running to mischief, a 
false witness that speaketh lies, and him 
that soweth discord among brethren." 
Hosea. ix. 15 : " All their wickedness is in 
Gilgal ; for there I hated them ; for the 
wickedness of their doings I will drive them 
out of my house, I will love them no more." 
It is clear then that God hates the wicked 
in some sense, while he loves all men in the 
sense of benevolence, or a disposition to 
promote their happiness. The word love 
then, must be used in some other sense, in 
which it stands opposed to hatred and an- 
ger. 

2. The love wherewith God loves the de- 
voted, holy Christians, has added to the 
benevolence, which constitutes his love for 
all men, complacency. He approves of their 
character and deeds, and loves them with 



CHAP. II.] 



THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 



75 



more than benevolence ; lie takes delight in 
them, and towards them this delight takes 
the place of the anger and hatred which he 
feels towards the workers of iniquity. 

" But saints are lovely in his sight, 
He views his children with delight. 
He sees their hope, he knows their fear, 
He looks and loves his image there." 

For want of making this distinction, many 
have reasoned very falaciously, concerning 
the divine goodness and love, and have been 
led to very erroneous conclusions. 

The mercy of G-od is not to be regarded 
as a distinct attribute, but only as a mani- 
festation of goodness or love. Mercy is 
clemency, compassion or favor shown to the 
guilty, and is not to be distinguished from 
goodness, any more than the stream can be 
distinguished from the fountain, whence it 
issues. The goodness of God leads him to 
have mercy upon sinners, so far as mercy is 
consistent with justice and the claims of a 
moral government, and beyond this, good- 
ness cannot go. That the above views are 
sustained by the Scriptures a few texts will 
show. The following scriptures prove that 
God's goodness and benevolence extends to 
all mankind. Psal. xxv. 8 : " Good and 
upright is the Lord ; therefore will he teach 
sinners in the way. Psal. cxlv. 9 : " The 
Lord is good unto all ; and his tender mer- 
cies are over all his works." Matt. v. 45: 
" He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and 
on the good, and sendeth rain on the just 
and on the unjust." John iii. 16 : " God 
so loved the world, that he gave his only be- 
gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him 
might not perish, but have everlasting life." 
That this includes all men, there can be no 
doubt, when we consider that Christ died 
and intercedes for all men. Heb. ii. 9 : 
" We see Jesus who was made a little low^er 
than the angels, for the suffering of death, 
crowned with glory and honor ; that he by 
the grace of God shall taste death for every 
man." 1. John ii. 2 : "He is the propitia- 
tion for our sins, and not for ours only, but 
also for the sins of the whole world." 



The following texts speak of the good- 
ness, love and special regard of God for his 
people, those who love and obey him, in con- 
tradistinction of transgressors. Psal. Ixxxvi. 
5 : " For thou. Lord, art good, and ready to 
forgive, and plenteous in mercy unto all 
them that call upon thee." Here God s 
pardon and mercy are restricted to them 
that pray, that call upon him. Psal. cxlvi. 
8 : " The Lord loveth the righteous." Prov. 
iii. 12 : " Whom the Lord loveth he cor- 
recteth, even as the father, the son in whom 
he delighteth." Heb. xii. 6, 7 : " Whom 
the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth 
every son whom he receiveth. If ye en- 
dure chastening, God dealeth with you as 
sons." Prov. xv. 9 : " The way of the 
wicked is an abomination unto the Lord, 
but he loveth him that followeth after right- 
eousness." Prov. viii. 17 : "I love them 
that love me." John xiv. 21 : " He that 
loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and 
I will love him and manifest myself to him." 
Verse 23 : " If a man love me, he will keep 
my words : and my Father will love him, 
and we will come unto him, and make our 
abode with him." 1 Cor. ii. 9 : " Eye hath 
not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered 
into the heart of man, the things which God 
hath prepared for them that love him." 
James i. 12 : " The crown of life, which the 
Lord hath prepared for them that love him." 
James ii. 5 : " Harken, my beloved brethren^ 
hath not God chosen the poor of this world 
rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which 
he hath promised to them that love him." 

The above texts clearly prove that God 
does not regard all men with the same favor, 
that the love with which he regards all men, 
is not the same as that with which he regards 
those who love and obey him. The conclu- 
sion to which we are conducted is therefore, 

1. That God is good unto all, and that he 
loves all mankind with the love of benevo- 
lence, which seeks to promote the greatest 
happiness of all, but that this goodness and 
love can act only in harmony with the prin- 
ciples of a perfectly righteous moral gov- 
ernment, so that the sinner comes short of 



76 



THE ATTRIBUTES OP GOD. 



[book IL 



grace and salvation, which the love of God 
would bestow, by his uon-conforraity to the 
divine law, and his non-compliance with the 
conditions on which goodness can bestow 
saving grace, consistently with all the at- 
tributes of the divine nature, or a perfect 
moral government. 

2. God loves those who truly love and 
servo him, who are renewed after his image, 
and are holy, with the love, not only of be- 
nevolence, but of complacency, or approba- 
tion. This distinction being well understood, 
with the principles upon which it rests, will 
guard us against the fatal error of presum- 
ing upon the love and mercy of God while 
we live in sin, on one hand, and against the 
no less fatal error, on the other, of fancying 
ourselves so excluded from the divine favor 
by such a fatal decree of reprobation as 
necessarily precludes the power of faith, 
and shuts out the stimulous of hope. 

SECTION IX. 
The Holiness of God. 

Perfect holiness is entire moral goodness, 
to the exclusion of all moral evil. God is 
absolutely holy, because he possesses, in his 
own nature, all possible moral goodness, to 
the exclusion of every kind and degree of 
moral evil. 

The holiness of God cannot be contem- 
plated as a distinct attribute of the divine 
nature, capable of existing by itself, as we 
may conceive of power, wisdom, omnipres- 
ence or even justice. We can conceive of 
power without wisdom, or wisdom without 
power, or of justice without benevolence, 
for these are all distinct qualities, which may 
exist each by itself, but we cannot conceive 
of the holiness of God, as capable of exist- 
ing by itself, but only as pervading every 
other attribute, and as comprehending every 
conceivable moral perfection of the divine 
nature. The holiness of God must be con- 
ceived of as embracing every moral quality 
of the divine nature, comprehending univer- 
sal rectitude, and entire and absolute moral 



goodness. To illustrate what is meant, kt 
it be remarked that we cannot conceive of 
holiness without justice ; to talk of a holy 
unjust being, would be to contradict our- 
selves. Injustice precludes the idea of holi- 
ness, inasmuch as holiness includes justice 
as one of its essential constituents. We 
cannot conceive of holrness without truth j 
the holiness of God therefore comprehends 
his veracity. We cannot conceive of holi- 
ness without entire faithfulness. Nor can 
we conceive of holiness without benevolence, 
love, yea, entire goodness. A holy being 
without the element of moral goodness, is 
impossible. The holiness of God may then 
b3 contemplated in a twofold view. 

1. As absolute purity, involving the ab- 
sence of all moral evil or defilement, and all 
tendency to moral evil or defilement. If it 
could be admitted that there might be any- 
thing in the divine mind contrary to perfect 
holiness, it would follow that such quality 
must exist there essentially, or voluntarily, 
neither of which can be true. All imper- 
fection or evil, implies want or weakness. 
But as God is eternal, and existed before 
all things, and has produced all things, he, 
as has been shown, must be omnipotent and 
absolutely independent, and, therefore, can- 
not know want or weakness. Moreover, we 
cannot conceive of a self-existing, almighty, 
independent being, with a nature conflicting 
with itself, and embracing absolutely oppo- 
site qualities as good and evil are opposed 
to each other. We can conceive of a 
finite being as man, presenting a compound 
of good and evil, because man is subject to 
external and opposite influences, but this is 
not true of God. He was once the only in- 
fluence that existed, and, therefore, could be 
influenced only by himself, by his own infinite 
nature, and free from all external influences, 
there could be but one influence arising from 
his own nature, and that must be wholly 
good or evil, for it could not be both. Al- 
lowing a good and an evil influence to exist 
in the divine nature, the one must be greater 
than the other, or they must be equally bal- 
anced. If the good influence were greater 



CHAP. II.] 



THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 



11 



than the evil influence, it would sway the 
infinite mind, which would be directed to 
good ends, and good only, and the evil would 
be suppressed and remain inoperative, if not 
eradicated ; for God could not do evil, while un- 
der a stronger influence to do good. If the evil 
influence were the greater, it would prevail, 
and the good influence would be suppressed, 
and nothing but evil would be developed. 
If the influences were equal, they would bal- 
ance each other, and prevent any act from 
proceeding from either good or evil influ- 
ence. Thus is it clear that God, being 
eternal, omnipotent, independent, and sub- 
ject to no influence but that of his own na- 
ture, cannot possess in himself the operative 
elements of both good and evil, and the con- 
clusion is, that God is perfectly and entirely 
holy to the exclusion of all moral evil. 

It would be equally absurd, to suppose 
that a principle or habit of evil in the eter- 
nal mind can have been voluntarily adopted ; 
for unless it existed in the infinite mind es- 
sentially and eternally, it could have no 
cause. There being no evil in the divine 
nature, existing from eternity, and God be- 
ing incapable of being influenced by external 
causes, it is utterly impossible that he should 
have voluntarily adopted evil. The holi 
ness of God then consists of entire moral 
purity, to the exclusion of all moral impuri- 
ty, all moral evil, all sin. 

2. The holiness of God is not merely nega- 
tive, but positive, consists not only in the 
absence of all evil, but in the presence of all 
possible positive operative goodness. The 
moral attributes of G^d, are not mere ca- 
pacities, as wisdom and power are mere 
capacities, but are properties and disposi- 
tions essentially active, not only involving 
inherent essential goodness, but dispensing 
it. As a sentiment or disposition, the holi- 
ness of God may be regarded as involving 
three things. 

(1.) An infinite hatred and opposition to 
sin, or moral evil of every kind and degree. 
Hab. i. 13 : " Thou art of purer eyes than 
to behold evil, and canst not look upon 
iniquity." Psal. xlv. 7 : " Thou hast 



hated wickedness." Heb. i. 9 : " Thou hast 
hated iniquity." 

(2.) An infinite love or regard for all that 
is good and right and holy. This follows as 
a consequence, for it is not possible to con- 
ceive of an intense hatred of wrong, without 
a corresponding love of what is right. But 
God has not left us to this inference. Psal. xii. 
7 : " The righteous Lord loveth righteous- 
ness ; his countenance doth behold the up 
right." Isa. Ixi. 8 : " I, the Lord, love judg- 
ment, I hate robbery for burnt offerings." 
All the commandments of God, sustained 
by eternal sanctions, and all the means that 
he has instituted to suppress sin and pro- 
mote holiness, including the gift of his Son, 
testify to the intensity of his love of virtue. 
(3.) A practical exemplification, and ac- 
tual communication of goodness, and diffu- 
sion of holiness and happiness, so far as is 
consistent with the law of right, and as can 
be done in harmony with all the attributes of 
God, which, as a whole, render him abso- 
lutely and infinitely perfect. Hence, it is 
that we may read the goodness of God in 
creation, in Providence and in Redemption : 
and that in the provision of Grace, all has 
been done that can be done, to promote hu- 
man happiness. God himself is limited by the 
immutable perfections of his own nature, in 
his modes of operation for the redemption of 
sinners, and the diffusion of holiness and hap- 
piness among moral agents. It has been 
remarked that we are not to comtemplate 
holiness as a distinct attribute, capable of 
existing by itself, but as a quality and dispo- 
sition, pervading all the attributes of the 
divine nature, so that we cannot conceive 
of holiness, without justice, truth, and good- 
ness, as constituting its essential elements, 
and characterising all its practical develop- 
ments. And so must it be attended, in its 
practical developments, by wisdom, for a 
being who possesses perfect wisdom, cannot 
be practically holy, only by acting accord- 
ing to the dictates of such perfect wisdom. 
It is, therefore, exclusively with reference to 
this harmony of the divine attributes, that wo 



78 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



[book II. 



limit holiness in its practical dififusion. To 
know what the essential conditions are upon 
which sinners can be made partakers of the 
divine nature, through its practical diffusion 
of holiness and happiness, we must study 
God's gracious offers of salvation as pre- 
sented in the gospel, and the terms thereun- 
to annexed, for the discussion of which this 
is not the place, more than to remark that 
from the nature of holiness itself, omnipo- 
tence cannot impart it to a moral agent 
against the will of such moral agent, but 
only in accordance with the desires of the 
heart, and the determination of the will. 



CHAPTEE III. 

A TRINITY IN THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD, 

SECTION I. 

Preliminary Remarks — The Pomts to he 
proved, Stated. 

Trinitarians uniformly assert that there 
is but one living and true God, everlasting, 
of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness 
the maker and preserver of all things, visi- 
ble and invisible. And in unity of this 
Godhead there ar^ three persons, of one sub- 
stance, power, and eternity ; — the Father, 
the Son, [the Word] and the Holy Ghost. 

The above view is not only asserted as 
true, but is maintained as fundamental. It 
may not be regarded as fundamental, in a 
sense which necessarily denies salvation to 
all who do not believe it, but only in a sense 
which would vitiate the whole Christian 
system, and render it powerless to save, if it 
were not true. All that is fundamental to 
Christianity, as a system, may not be fun- 
damental to, and be comprehended in detail, 
in the faith by which a sinner is justified. 
The subject necessarily embraces the follow- 
ing points : 



1. The Unity of God, or oneness of the 
divine nature. 

2. The underived divinity of Jesus Christ. 

3. The real humanity of Christ, or Hy- 
postatic Union. 

4. The divinity and personality of the 
Holy Ghost. 

5. The Trinity in the Unity of the God- 
head. 

These five propositions form distinct 
points for investigation, yet they have such 
a bearing upon each other, that no one of 
them, except the first, can be true or false, 
without carrying with it the truth or falsity 
of the rest. There cannot be three persons 
in the Godhead, without the personality and 
divinity of both Jesus Christ and the Holy 
Ghost, as without these we have no second 
and third person to make up the Trinity. 
On the other hand, the personality and di- 
vinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost, 
cannot be true, without the Trinity, for if 
these were admitted, and the Trinity denied, 
the unity of God could not be true, and 
Christ and the Holy Ghost, with the Fath- 
er, would constitute three Gods. But, if 
we admit the doctrine of the Trinity, by 
saying as above, that " in unity of the God- 
head, there are three persons, of one sub- 
stance, power, and eternity, the Father, Son 
or Word, and the Holy Ghost, then is the 
divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost in 
harmony with the unity of the divine nar 
ture, and the four points above named, mu- 
tually explain and support each other, and 
constitute one harmonious whole. It is the 
most simple method of presenting these 
subjects, to examine them separately, and 
then consider them conjointly, in connection 
with, and as illustrating and confirming the 
doctrine of the Trinity. Some labor to 
prove the doctrine of the Trinity, first, and 
then proceed to establish the Divinity of 
Christ, and the personality of the Holy . 
Ghost. This, no doubt, can be done, but 
it is a more simple method to exhibit the 
three great truths, viz : the Unity of God, 
the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and the Per- 
sonality of the Holy Ghost, and then pro- 



CHAP. III.] 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



79 



ceed to establish the Trinity, as a necessary 
consequence. In the discussion of the sub- 
ject, the principal argument must appear in 
proof of the essential divinity of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. This should be made the 
strong point for the following reasons : 

1. The doctrine of the Unity of God is 
admitted by all parties who profess to be- 
lieve in the God of tlie Bible. Men may 
differ in their views concerning it, they may 
make different applications of it, and de- 
clare different consequences from it, but all 
agree in the essential fact of the unity of 
the divine nature. 

2. Unitarians, (so called,) usually make 
more effort to refute the doctrine of the es- 
sential divinity of Christ, than any other 
one point upon which the doctrine of the 
Trinity depends. They make this a rally- 
ing point, and attempt to disprove the doc- 
trine of the essential divinity of Christ, as 
a means of overthrowing the doctrine of the 
Trinity. It is proper, therefore, to make 
this a prominent point in a defense of the 
doctrine of the Trinity. 

3. The incarnation of Christ, with his 
life in the flesh, sufferings and death, bring 
him so distinctly to view as a personal iden- 
tity, that if his essential underived divinity 
be established, the doctrine of the Trinity, 
(allowing the personality of the Holy 
Ghost,) must follow. 

4. When the divinity of Jesus Christ is 
established, few if any, will deny the person- 
ality of the Holy Ghost. We believe that 
all who admit the underived divinity of 
Christ, also admit the personality of the 
Holy Ghost, and consequently hold the doc- 
trine of the Trinity. 

5. The relation which Christ sustains to 
the plan of human redemption, and the con- 
sequent prominence in which he is present- 
ed in the Scriptures, renders the proof of 
his divinity more abundant and clear, than 
could be expected on either of the other 
points, separately considered. These are 
some of the reasons for devoting more effort 
in proof of the underived divinity of Jesus 
Christ, than to the unity of d-od, the per- 



sonality of the Holy Ghost, or the doctrine 
of the Trinity, as a point proved distinct 
from the others, yet all these points need to 
be clearly presented, with such proofs as the 
nature of the case admits. 



SECTION II. 

The Unity of God. 

The unity of God is the first point to be 
presented. On this important point, all pro- 
fessed Christians agree, in the main fact, 
that God is one, however differently they 
may explain their views. That class of 
Christians who call themselves Unitarians, 
assume this name to denote that they hold 
to the unity of God, the oneness of the di- 
vine nature. This doctrine, it is true, they 
oppose to the doctrine of the Trinity, as 
though Unitarian and Trinitarian were an- 
tithetical terms. Such is not the fact, only 
in an arbitrary sense, in which they are now 
used, to denote certain classes of persons 
who are known to hold certain opinions. 
In the true philological sense. Unitarian ex- 
presses nothing inconsistent with Trinita- 
rian, since all Trinitarians contend for unity 
of the divine nature, as earnestly as those 
who claim the name of Unitarian. 

On the point of the unity of God, the Bi- 
ble is clear. A few passages will be all that 
need be quoted : 

Deut. iv. 39 : " Know therefore this day, 
and consider it in thy heart, that the Lord 
he is God in heaven above, and upon the 
earth beneath ; there is none else." 

Chap. vi. 4, 5 ; « Hear O Israel ; the 
Lord our God is one Lord. And thou shalt 
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
with all thy soul, and with all thy might." / 

The last text is quoted by Christ, Mark 
xii. 29-30 : " And Jesus answered him. The 
first of all the commandments, is, Hear 
Israel ; the Lord our God is one Lord. And 
thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all 
thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with 
all thy mind, and with all thy strength ; this 
is the first commandment." 



80 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



[book II. 



Isa. xliv. 6,8:" Thus saith the Lord, the 
King of Israel, and his Eedeemer the Lord 
of hosts ; I am the first, and I am the last, 
and besides me there is no God. Fear ye 
not, neither be afraid ; have not I told thee 
from that time, and have declared it ? ye 
are even my witnesses. Is there a God be- 
side me ? yea, there is no God, I know not 
any." 

John xvii. 3 : " And this is life eternal, 
that they might know thee the only true 
God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast 
sent." 

1 Cor. viii. 4, 6 : " As concerning there- 
fore the eating of those things that are of 
fered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that 
an idol is nothing in the world, and that 
there is none other God but one. But to us 
there is but one God, the Father, of whom 
are all things, and we in him ; and one Lord 
Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and 
we by him." 

Eph. iv. 6 : " One God and Father of all, 
who is above all, and through all, and in 
you all." 

The above scriptures are sufficient to set- 
tle the question of the unity of God, they 
clearly prove that there is but one God, and 
that God is but one. If there be three per- 
sons in the Godhead, as Trinitarians assert, 
still it must be only in such a sense as is 
consistent with the oneness of God; God 
nmst still be but one, as God. 

SECTION III. 

The Under ived Divinity of Christ. 

I. The names and titles by which Je- 
hovah has distinguished himself, are, in 
the Scriptures, appropriated to Christ. 

The first name by which the Supreme 
Being has distinguished himself is, God. 
" In the beginning God created the heav- 
ens and the earth." This is the common 
name by which God is known in the Old 
Testament, and that it is appropriated to 
Christ, cannot be denied. A few example 
from both the Old and New Testaments, 
will place the question beyond doubt. A 



most clear and satisfactory proof is found 
in a comparison between Psalms cii. 24r-27, 
with Hebrews i. 8, 10, 11, 12. It will be 
seen that what the Psalmist said in his 
prayer to God, the Apostle applies to 
Christ. Here is the prayer of Zion's bard. 
" I said, my God, take me not away 
in the midst of my days : thy years are 
throughout all generations. Of old hast 
thou laid the foundation of the earth : and 
the heavens are the works of thy hands. 
They shall perish, but thou shalt eiidure : 
yea, all of them shall wax old like a gar- 
ment ; as a vesture shalt thou change them, 
and they shall be changed. But thou art 
the same, and thy years shall have no end." 
Now, consider the declaration of the 
Apostle, while he applies the whole to 
Christ. 

" But unto the Son, he saith. Thy throne, 
God, is forever and ever : a sceptre of 
righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast 
laid the foundation of the earth : and the 
heavens are the works of thy hands. They 
shall perish ; but thou remainest : and they 
all shall wax old as doth a garment. And 
as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and 
they shall be changed : but thou art the 
same, and thy years shall not fail." 

Here then we have one clear instance in 
which inspiration has appropriated the 
name of the eternal God, to our Lord Jesus 
Christ. 

To avoid the force of the above text, so 
clear and conclusive in itself, it has some- 
times been translated so as to make it read, 
" God is thy throne forever and ever." But 
to this verbal criticism, there are three seri- 
ous and fatal objections, which compel us 
to abide by the word of God as it is here 
given in our translation, and already quoted. 

1. There is no parallel case to give it 
countenance. 

2. It makes no sense ; God is not and 
cannot be a throne. 

3. To make God the throne of a creature, 
would be absurd and false, if not blasphe- 
mous. 



CHAP. III.] 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



81 



Again. We have a most remarkable 
declaration in the Old Testament, giving the 
title " Mighty God'' to Jesus Christ. 

" For unto us a child is born, unto us a 
Son is given ; and the government shall be 
upon his shoulder ; and his name shall be 
called Wonderful, Counsellor, the MigMy 
God, The Everlasting Father, the Prince of 
Peace." Isa. ix. 6. 

This clearly refers to Christ, because 

1. The context is applied to Christ. 
The first and second verses of the ninth 

chapter of Isaiah, read thus : 

" Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be 
such as was in her vexation, when at the 
first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, 
and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards 
did more grievously afflict her in the way of 
the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the 
nations. 

" The people that walked in darkness 
have seen a great light : they that dwell in 
the land of the shadow of death, upon them 
hath the light shined." 

Compare this with Matthew iv. 12-16 : 
" Now when Jesus had heard that John 
was cast into prison, he departed into Gal- 
ilee. And leaving Nazareth, he came and 
dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea 
coast in the borders of Zabulon and Neph- 
thalim." 

"That it might be fulfilled which was 
spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The 
land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephtha- 
lim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, 
Galilee of the Gentiles ; The people which 
sat in darkness saw great light : and to 
them which sat in the region and shadow of 
death, light is sprung up." 

2. The child thus born is the successor of 
David, and to reign forever. 

" Of the increase of his government and 
peace there shall be no end, upon the throne 
of David, and upon his kingdom, to order 
it, and to establish it with judgment and 
with justice, from henceforth even forever. 
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform 
this." Isaiah ix. 7. 

It is impossible to apply this passage to 
6 



any other person than to Jesus Christ. For 
no other person was ever spoken of as the 
everlasting successor of David, except Jesus 
Christ. 

It is said in Isaiah xl. 3 : " 

" The voice of him that crieth in the wil- 
derness. Prepare ye the way of the Lord, 
make straight in the desert a highway for 
our God." 

This is applied to Christ in Matt. iii. 3 : 
" For this is he that was spoken of by the 
prophet Esaias, saying, the voice of one 
crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the 
way of the Lord, make his paths straight." 
Observe; the prophet calls Christ "Our 
God." There can be but one exposition of 
this. The supreme God must be meant. 
" This God is our God forever and ever." 
Psa. xlviii. 14. 

In the following passage, the speaker de- 
clares himself to be God. And the speaker 
in this case was Christ as will be made to 
appear. 

" Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the 
ends of the earth ; for I am God, and there 
is none else. I have sworn by myself, the 
word is gone out of my mouth in righte- 
ousness, and shall not return. That unto me 
every knee shall bow, and every tongue 
shall swear. Surely, shall one say. In the 
Lord have I righteousness and strength : 
even to him shall men come ; and all that 
are incensed against him shall be ashamed. 
In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be 
justified, and shall glory." Isa. xlv. 22-25. 

This text is, in fact, the language of 
Christ, and is, in part, spoken of Christ. 
The arguments in favor of this are : 

1. The language upon its face concerns 
Christ. 

The same being who says, " I am God and 
there is none else," is thus affirmed of in the 
declaration — " In the Lord shall the seed of 
Israel be justified, and shall glory." 

The text relates to gospel times, and gos- 
pel justification. Hear what Paul says. 

" Be it known unto you, therefore, men 
and brethren, that through this man is 
preached unto you the forgiveness of sins : 



82 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



[book ii. 



And by him, all that believe are justified 
from all things, from which ye could not be 
justified by the law of Moses." Acts xiii. 
38, 39. 

2. This text is clearly applied to Christ 
by the Apostle. 

" But why dost thou judge thy brother ? 
or why dost thou set at nought thy brother ? 
we shall all stand 15efore the judgment seat 
of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith 
the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and 
every tongue shall confess to God. So, 
then, every one of us shall give account of 
himself to God." Rom. xiv. 10-12. 

Here the Apostle solemnly admonishes us. 
that we shall all stand before the judgment 
seat of Christ. To prove it he quotes the 
declaration of Isaiah, xlv. 23 : " Every knee 
shall bow to me and every tongue confess to 
God." This is followed by the Apostle's 
saying, "So then every one shall give an 
account of himself to God." Thus clearly 
affirming that "the Lord" spoken of by 
Isaiah is no other than " Christ," and that 
Christ is " God." 

" In the beginning was the Word, and the 
Word w^as with God, and the Word was 
God." John i. 1. 

The only real ground of dispute in regard 
to this text is this : is Jesus Christ the person 
here called the Word ? This point shall be 
made plain. 

1. It was to this same Word that John 
gave testimony, 

" In him was life ; and the life was the 
light of men. And the light shineth in 
darkness ; and the darkness comprehended 
it not. There was a man sent from God 
whose name was John. The same came for 
a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that 
all men through him might believe. He 
was not that Light, but was sent to bear 
witness of that Light." 

2. This same Word was made flesh ; that 
is became incarnate. *' And the Word was 
made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we be- 
held his glory, the glory as of the only be- 
gotten of the Father.) full of grace and 
ti'uth. John bare witness of him, and cried.. 



saying, This was he of whom I spake, He 
that Cometh after me is preferred before 
me ; for he was before rne." 

3. Christ is named as the Word which 
was God. " And of his fullness have all we 
received, and grace for grace. For the law 
was given by Moses, but grace and truth 
came by Jesus Christ." 

There you have it. The mystery, if any 
there was, is all explanied now. The Word 
is Jesus Christ ; and as the Word is God, 
it follows that Jesus Christ is God. 

" Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as 
concerning the flesh, Christ caine, who is 
over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." 
Rom. ix. 5. This text is conclusive. 

If anything can be more emphatic on this 
point it is found in the following passage : 

" And we know that the Son of God is 
come, and hath given us an understanding, 
that we may know him that is true : and 
we are in him that is true, even in his Son 
Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and 
eternal life." 1 John v. 20. 

The reader's attention is now invited to 
the following argument, drawn from the 
book of Revelations. 

" And he that sat upon the throne, said, 
Behold, I make all things new. And he 
said unto me. Write ; for these words are 
true and faithful. And he said unto me. It 
is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the be- 
ginning and the end. I will give unto him 
that is athirst, of the fountain of the water 
of life freely. He that overcometh shall 
inherit all things ; and I will be his God, 
and he shall be my son." Rev. xxi. 5, 7. 8. 

JSTow who is it that gives the water of 
life freely ? I maintain that it relates to 
Jesus Christ. The person in this text, is he 
who gives the water of life freely. But 
Christ gives the water of life. See Christ 
standing in the temple and crying, while 
they poured the water round the altar, " If 
any man thirst, let him come unto me and 
drink." John vii. 37. Again, it is said, 
Rev, vii. 17 : " The Lamb that sitteth in the 
midst of the throne shall feed them, and 
lead them to the fountain of living water." 



CHAP. ITL] 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



83 



That Christ is the subject of this text will 
appear further by comparing it with others 
of which there can be no doubt. 
It is the " Alpha and Omega." 
Christ is the Alpha and Omega. 
" And behold, I come quickly ; and my 
reward is with me, to give every man ac- 
cording as his work shall be. I am Alpha 
and Omega, the beginning and the end, the 
first and the last." Kev. xxii. 12, 13. 

Here Alpha and Omega is the person who 
was to come quickly with his reward, to 
give to every man as his works should be. 

But it was Jesus Christ that was to come 
quickly. 

" I, Jesus, have sent mine angel to testify 
these things." Yerse 16. 

" For I testify unto every man that hear- 
eth the words of the prophecy of this book." 
Verse 18. 

"He which testifieth these things saith 
surely, I come quickly. Amen. Even so 
come Lord Jesus." Verse 20. 

The argument stands thus : — Christ is he 
that was to come quickly. He that was to 
come quickly was the Alpha and Omega. 

The Alpha and Omega is the person 
speaking and spoken of in the first text. 

" And he that sat upon the throne said, 
Behold, I make all things new. And he 
said unto me. Write ; for these words are 
true and faithful. And he said unto me. It 
is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the be- 
ginning and the end. I will give unto him 
that is athirst, of the fountain of the water 
of life freely He that overcometh shall in- 
herit all things ; and I will be his God, and 
he shall be my son." Kev. xxi. 5, 6, 7. 

I will now go back to Chapter 1. 

" Behold, he cometh with clouds ; and 
every eye shall see him, and they also which 
pierced him ; and all kindreds of the earth 
shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. 
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and 
the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and 
which was, and which is to come, the Al- 
mighty." Eev. i. 7, 8. 

This is entirely conclusive, if it can be 
shown to be the words of Christ. 



It has been shown in the preceding argu- 
ment, that Christ is the Alpha and Omega. 
The context here confirms this position, 
as follows : 

" I was in the Spirit on the Lord'? day, 
and heard behind me a great voice, as of a 
trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, 
the first and the last : and, what thou 
seest, write in a book, and send it unto 
the seven churches which are in Asia ; 
unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and 
unto Pergamos, and unto -Thyatn-a, and 
unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and 
unto Laodicea. And I turned to see the 
voice that spake with me. And being 
turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks ; 
And in the midst of the seven candlesticks, 
one like unto the Son of man, clothed with 
a garment down to the foot, and girt about 
the paps with a golden girdle. His head 
and his hairs were white like wool, as white 
as snow ; and his eyes were a flame of fire ; 
And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they 
burned in a furnace ; and his voice as the 
sound of many waters. And he had in his 
right hand seven stars ; and out of his 
mouth went a sharp two-edged sword : and 
his countenance was as the sun shineth in 
his strength. And when I saw him, I fell 
at his feet as dead. And he laid his right 
hand upon me, saying unto me. Fear not ; I 
am the first and the last : I am he that 
liveth, and was dead ; and, behold, I am 
alive for evermore, Amen ; and have the 
keys of hell and death." Rev. i. 10-18. 

This is Christ without a doubt. " I am 
he that liveth, and was dead." Verse 18. 

He is " the Alpha, and the Omega." 
Verse 11. 

" The first and the last." lb. It is re- 
peated, verse 17. 

It has now been made clear, that Christ 
is the person, who declares himself to be the 
' Alpha and Omega," the first and the last. 
The full force of the name God, therefore is 
applied to Christ, in Chapter xxi. 6, 7. 

The name, Jehovah, or Lord, is also ap- 
plied to Christ, as I will now prove. 

In the Old Testament^ where the word 



84 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



[book II. 



Yehovah, or Jeliovab, occurs in the Hebrew 
our translators have usually rendered it 
Lord, and have printed it in capitals to dis 
tinguish it from another word, Adonai, 
which is also translated Lord. 

The common reader may know, then, that 
where the word Lord is found printed in 
small capital letters, Jehovah is the word 
used in the original. This word Jehovah is 
only applicable to the eternal God. It sig- 
nifies the self-existent ; he who gives exist- 
ence to others ; he who was, is, and shall be 
I will prove that this ineffable name, Jehovah 
is applied to our Lord Jesus Christ. 

In the New Testament the Greek word, 
Lord, is Kurios, by which the Hebrew Je- 
hovah, is usually rendered in Greek. 

This word signifies a Lord, possessor 
owner, master. It is often applied to men, 
but is also applied to the Supreme Being. 

" Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God. 
Matt. iv. 10. 

•' Thou shalt love the Lord thy God. 
Matt. xxii. 39 ; Mark, xii. 30. 

" They were both righteous before God, 
walking in all the commandments and ordi 
nances of the Lord blameless." Luke i. 6. 

" The temple of the Lord," Luke i. 9 

" The angel of the Lord." Luke ii. 9. 

" They brought him to Jerusalem to pre- 
sent him to the Lord." Liike ii. 22. 

" The spirit of the Lord is upon me." 
Luke iv. 18. 

These cases are sufficient to show that the 
word Lord, is used in the New Testament 
to describe the true God. 

A few texts will settle this question. 

" The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at 
my right hand until I make thine enemies 
thy footstool." Psal. ex. 1. 

The original here is, " Jehovah said unto 
my Ladona." 

David here calls Christ my Lord. 

" While the Pharisees were gathered to- 
gether, Jesus asked them, saying, what 
think ye of Christ, whose son is he ? They 
say unto him, the son of David. He saith 
unto them, how then doth David in spirit 
call him Lord ? spying. The Lord saith unto 



my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I 
make thine enemies thy footstool. If David 
then call him Lord how is he his son ?" 
Matt. xxii. 41-45. 

Christ was David's Lord. 

" In the year that king Uzz'ah died_, I 
saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, 
high and lifted up, and his train filled the 
temple. And one cried unto another, and 
said. Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts ; 
the whole earth is full of his glory. Then 
said I, Wo is me ! for I am undone ; be- 
cause I am a man of unclean lips, and I 
dwell in the midst of a people of unclean 
lips : for mine eyes have seen the King, the 
Lord of hosts. Also I heard the voice of 
the Lord, saying. Whom shall I send, and 
who will go for us ? Then I said, here am 
I ; send me. And he said, Go, and tell this 
people. Hear ye indeed, but understand not ; 
and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make 
the heart of this people fat and make their 
ears heavy, and shut their eyes ; lest they 
see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, 
and understand with their heart, and con- 
vert, and be healed." Isa. vi. I, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10. 

Now let us turn to the following text : 

" But though he had done so many mira- 
cles before them, yet they believed not on 
him : That the saying of Esaias the pro- 
phet might be fulfilled, which he spake. 
Lord, who hath believed our report ? and to 
whom hath the arm of the Lord been re- 
vealed ? Therefore they could not believe 
because that Esaias said again. He hath 
blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, 
that they should not see with their eyes, nor 
understand with their heart, and be con- 
verted, and I should heal them. These 
things said Esaias, when he saw his glory 
and spake of him." John xii. 37-41. 

Isaiah says, he saw the King, the Jehovah 
of hosts. John says, he saw Christ's glory, 
and spake of him. Therefore Christ was 
the Jehovah of the prophet. 

Again, it is said in Isa. xl. 3 : " the voice 
of him that crieth in the wilderness, Pre" 
pare ye the way of the Lord, make straight 
in the desert a highway for our God." 



CHAP. III.] 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



85 



Matt. iii. 3 : " For this is he that was 
spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, 
The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make 
his paths straight." 

This text was before quoted to prove that 
Christ is called God. It is now quoted to 
prove that he is called Jehovah. 

Isaiah viii. 13-15 : " Sanctify the Lord of 
hosts himself ; and let him be your fear, and 
let him be your dread. And he shall be for 
a sanctuary ; but for a stone of stumbling, 
and for a rock of offence, to both the house 
of Israel ; for a gin and for a snare to the 
inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among 
them shall stumble and fall, and be broken, 
and be takerl." 

1 Peter ii. 1,8: " Unto you therefore 
which believe, he is precious : but unto them 
which be disobedient, the stone which the 
builders disallowed, the same is made the 
head of the corner. And a stone of sturab 
ling, and a rock of offence, even to them 
which stumble at the word, being disobe- 
dient : whereunto also they were appointed." 

The Lord of hosts is a stone of stumbling 
and a rock of offence. But Christ was that 
stone of stumbling. Therefore Christ is 
the Lord of hosts, named by the prophet. 

" And it shall come to pass, that whoso- 
ever shall call on the name of the Lord, shall 
be delivered : for in mount Zion and in Je- 
rusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord 
hath said, and in the remnant whom the 
Lord shall call." Joel ii. 32. 

Acts ii. 21 : " And it shall come to pass, 
that whosoever shall call on the name of the 
Lord shall be saved." 

Kom. X. 13, 14 : For whosoever shall call 
upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 
How then shall they call on him in whom 
they have not believed ? and how shall they 
believe in him of whom they have not heard ? 
and how shall they hear without a preach- 
er ?" 

1 Cor. i. 2 : '' Unto the Church of God 
which is at Corinth, to them that are sanc- 
tified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, 
with all that in every place call upon the 



name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs 
and ours." 

The Jehovah of the prophet Joel, is made 
to be Christ our Lord of the New Testa- 
ment, by three distinct applications of this 
prophecy. 

Mai. iii. 1 : " Behold, I will send my mes- 
senger, and he shall prepare the way before 
me : and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall 
suddenly come to his temple, even the mes- 
senger of the covenant, whom ye delight 
in : behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of 
hosts." 

This text treats of John and Christ as is 
seen by the following texts : 

Matt. xi. 10 : " For this is he of whom it 
is written, Behold, I send my messenger be- 
fore thy face, which shall prepare thy way 
before thee. Verily I say unto you, among 
them that are born of women,, there hath 
not risen a greater than John the Baptist." 

Mark i. 2, 3 : " As it is written in the 
prophets. Behold, I send my messenger be- 
fore thy face which shall prepare thy way 
before thee. The voice of one crying in the 
wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, 
make his paths straight." 

Luke vii. 26, 27 : " But what went ye out 
for to see ? A prophet ? Tea, I say unto 
you, and much more than a prophet. This 
is he of whom it is written. Behold I send 
my messenger before thy face, which shall 
prepare thy way before thee." 

I will now go back to the Hebrew text. 

Mai. iii. 1 : " Behold, I will send my mes- 
senger, and he shall prepare the way before 
me : and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall 
suddenly come to his temple, even the mes- 
senger of the covenant, whom ye delight 
in : behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of 
hosts." 

1. The speaker in this text is the Lord of 
hosts — Jehovah of hosts. 

2. This speaker sent John to prepare his 
own way for his own coming, which was to 
follow. 

3. But it was Christ whose way John 
prepared, and who followed him. 

II. The attributes which can belonof to 



86 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



[book II. 



none but the only living and true God, are 
all ceded to Christ. 

We know but little of the nature or es- 
sence of any thing, material or immaterial, 
and of course we know but little about God, 
more than that he is a Spirit, and that he 
possesses certain attributes, which are but 
qualities of his nature. Thus much is clear- 
ly taught in the Scriptures, and admitted by 
all who believe in their inspiration. The 
moral attributes of God are, in some degree 
at least, communicable, such as holiness, 
truth, and justice ; but he has certain nat- 
ural attributes, which are not and cannot 
be communicable, such as Eternity, Omnip- 
otence, Omnipresence, and Omiscience. The 
very nature of these must forever render 
' them incommunicable. If these are truly 
ascribed to Christ, he is at once invested 
with the distinctive character of the God oi" 
nature and of the Bible. 

1. Eternity is clearly one of the essential 
attributes of God, which is also ascribed to 
Christ. 

Christ is called " the everlasting Father." 
Isa. ix. 6. 

That Christ is here called the everlasting 
Father, does not admit of doubt, and this 
involves the idea of eternity. He is not 
called the everlasting Father^ in view of the 
relation he sustains to the other persons in 
the Trinity, but in view of the relation he 
sustains to all created beings, all else that 
exists but God, as all else is the offsprmg of 
his power. 

The Hebrew of the expression, " everlast- 
ing Father," literally signifies, " Father of 
Eternity." 

" But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, tJiongh 
thou be little among the thousands of Ju- 
dah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto 
me that is to be ruler in Israel ; whose go- 
ings forth have been from of old, from ever- 
lasting." Micah. V. 2. 

This text is applied to Christ. 

" When Herod the king had heard these 
things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem 
with him. And when he had gathered all 
the chief priests and scribes of the people 



together, he demanded of them where Christ 
should be born. And they said unto him, 
In Bethlehem of Judea : for thus it is writ- 
ten by the prophet. And thou Bethlehem, 
in the land of Judea, are not the least among 
the princes of Judea ; for out of thee shall 
come a Governor, that shall rule my people 
Israel." Matt. ii. 3-6. 

I will next call your attention to the fol- 
lowing : 

" I said, my God, take me not away in 
the midst of my days: thy years are through- 
out all generations. Of old hast thou laid 
the foundation of the earth ; and the heav- 
ens are the work of thy hands : They shall 
perish, but thou shalt endure ; yea, all of 
them shall wax old like a garment ; as a 
vesture shalt thou change them, and they 
shall be changed : But thou art the same, 
and thy years shall have no end." Ps, cii. 
24-27. 

This language is clearly applied to Christ. 
Heb. i. 8-12. 

" But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, 
God, is forever and ever ; a sceptre of 
righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom : 
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast 
laid the foundation of the earth ; and the 
heavens are the works of thy hands : They 
shall perish, but thou remainest ; and they 
all shall wax old as doth a garment ; And 
as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and 
they shall be changed : but thou art the 
same, and thy years shall not fail." 

I next adduce in testimony to be taken 
in connection with the former, this passage ; 

" Lord thou hast been our dwelling-place 
in all generations. Before the mountains 
were brought forth, or ever thou hadst 
formed the earth and the world, even from 
everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." 
Ps. xc. 1, 2. 

He who formed the earth and the world 
is God " from everlasting to everlasting." 

Christ formed the earth and the world ; 
therefore Christ is God from everlasting to 
everlasting. 

Again. Look at this declaration. 

" God said unto Moses, I am that I am." 



CHAP. III.] 



THE UNITY OP THE GODHEAD. 



87 



Exo. iii. 14. And we are informed that 
Jesus answered and said : 

" Before Abraham was, I am." John 
viii. 58. 

Here the Saviour uses the very language 
that expresses* the awful name of the true 
God, as he is distinguished from all that are 
called gods. "Who can doubt for one mo 
ment that the Saviour had his eye on the 
very declaration of Jehovah, and used it to 
identify himself with God, as one and the 
same being. 

Yet again it is written Jehovah says, " I 
am the first, and I am the last ; and be- 
sides me there is no God." Isa. xliv. 6. 
But Christ declares himself to be the first 
and the last. 

" And he laid his right hand upon me, 
saying unto me. Fear not ; I am the first 
and the last : I am he that liveth, and was 
dead ; and behold, I am alive forever more. 
Amen : and have the keys of hell and of 
death." 

Christ's eternity is most clearly and un- 
deniably proved by the fact that he created 
all things. 

Here I anticipate an argument, grounded 
upon the fact that Christ did create all 
things, which shall hereafter be elaborated. 

His eternity is the only point now in 
question, which is proved by the fact that 
he created all things. 

" All things were made by him ; and 
without him was not anything made that 
was made. For by him were all thing cre- 
ated, that are in heaven, and that are in 
earth, visible and invisible, whether they 
be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, 
or powers : all things were created by him, 
and for him ; And he is before all things, 
and by him all things consist." John i. 3, 
Col. i. 16, 17. 

He who created all things, must have ex- 
isted before anything was created. 

He who existed before anything was cre- 
ated must have always existed. 

But Jesus Christ did create all things, 
and he existed before anything was created, 
therefore Jesus Christ is eternal. 



2. Omnipotence is one of the essential 
and incommunicable attributes of Jehovah ; 
and this is ascribed to Christ. We have 
the'feame proof that Christ is omnipotent 
that we have that the Father is omnipo- 
tent. 

" For the invisible things of him from 
the creation of the world are clearly seen, 
being understood by the things that are 
made, even his eternal power and Godhead : 
so that they are without excuse." Eom. 
i. 20. 

The eternal power and Godhead are seen 
by the things that are made. 

But all things were made by Christ. 

Therefore the works of Christ are a de- 
velopment of his eternal power and Godhead. 

'' In him dwelleth all the fulness of the 
Godhead bodily." Col. ii. 9. 

All the fulness of the Godhead must em- 
brace omnipotence. 

If the Godhead embraces the attribnte of 
omnipotence, and all the fulness of the God- 
head dAvelleth in Christ, then must Christ 
be omnipotent. 

" But Jesus answered them. My Father 
worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore 
the Jews, sought the more to kill him, be- 
cause he not only had broken the sabbath, 
but said also that God was his Father, 
making himself equal with God. Then an- 
swered Jesus and said unto them, Yerily, 
erily, I say unto you. The Son can do 
nothing of himself, but what he seeth the 
Father do : for what things soever he 
doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." 
John V. 17-19. 

This text proves the omnipotence of 
Christ in two ways. 

(1.) It asserts his equality with the 
Father. 

The Jews so understood him, and he con- 
firmed them. 

(2.) It asserts that Christ does just 
v/hat the Father does. 

If God ever performed an act which 
nothing less than omnipotence could per- 
form, then, as Christ performs the same 
acts, he must be omnipotent. 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



[book II. 



Christ clearly asserts himself to be the 
Almighty. 

" I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning 
and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, 
and which was, and which is to come, the 
Almighty." Eev. i. 8. 

And it has been demonstrated in a for- 
mer argument, that Christ is the Alpha and 
Omega of this passage. 

The very name of Jehovah, which I have 
shown belongs to Christ, implies his om- 
nipotence. 

It cannot be pretended that Christ pos- 
sessed a delegated or communicated omnip- 
otence. Christ could not receive infinite 
power as a communication from the Fa- 
ther, unless he first possessed an infinite ca- 
pacity to receive and exercise it. 

But an infinite capacity cannot be cre- 
ated. 

Creation must be less than the Creator. 

God cannot create an equal God. 

Omnipotence cannot create omnipotence. 

Now as Christ did possess omnipotence, 
and as that could not be communicated, he 
must possess that omnipotence in and of 
himself: and therefore Christ must be God. 

3. Christ possessed the attribute of ubi- 
quity, or omnipresence. 

In proof of this I quote Matt, xviii. 20 : 
" For where two or three are gathered to- 
gether in my name, there am I in the midst 
of them." 

Here is a declaration which is not true, 
if Christ is not omnipresent. 

" Teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you : and 
lo, I am with you always, even unto the end 
of the world." Matt, xxviii. 20. 

Here is a promise which none but an om- 
nipresent Jesus can fulfill. 

Those ministers who deny the omnipres- 
ence of Christ, cannot pretend that he is 
with them in their ministrations. 

*' He that hath my commandments, and 
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me : and 
he that loveth me shall be loved of my Fa- 
ther ; and I will love him, and will manifest 
myself to him. Judas saith unto him (not 



Iscariot,) Lord, how is it that thou wilt 
manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the 
world ? Jesus answered and said unto him, 
If a man love me, he will keep my words : 
and my Father will love him, and we will 
come unto him, and make our abode with 
him." 

Let it be understood that these promises 
are to every individual Christian, in every 
part of the world. 

" And no man hath ascended up to 
heaven, but he that come down from heaven, 
even the Son of man, which is in heaven." 
John iii, 13. 

Here Chirst affirmed himself to be in 
heaven at the moment he was on earth. 

His body was not in heaven, but his di- 
vinity filled all in all. 

The manner in which Christ is associated 
with Christian worship and Christian ex- 
perience, proves him to be omnipresent. 

" Without me ye can do nothing." John 
XV. 5. 

Nothing then can be done where Christ 
is not. 

" I can do all things through Christ which 
strengtheneth me." Phil. iv. 13. 

Can Christ strengthen where he is not ?" 

" And he said unto me. My gTace is suffi- 
cient for thee : for my strength is made per- 
fect in weakness. Most gladly; therefore, 
will I rather glory in mine infirmities, that 
the power of Christ may rest upon me." 2 
Cor. xii. 9. 

Christ said, my grace is sufficient for 
thee. 

Christ said, my strength is made perfect 
in weakness. 

The power of Christ rested upon Paul in 
his weakness. 

The power of Christ cannot rest where 
Christ is not. 

Our only access to God is through Christ. 

So, as we could not worship an absent 
God, neither can we worship God in the ab- 
sence of Christ. 

Christ cannot be in Unitarian assemblies 
and in Unitarian worship, according to their 
theory. They can have no present Christ ; 



CHAP. HI.] 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



89 



none in their preaching; none in their] 
worship ; none in their joys ; none in their 
sorrows ; none in life, and none in death. If 
their theory be true, theirs must be a Christ- 
less journey to the tomb. 

4. Christ possessed the attribute of Om- 
niscience. 

" And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said, 
Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts ?" 
Matt. ix. 4. 

The marginal reading is, seeing their 
thoughts. 

" All things are delivered unto me of my 
Father ; and no man knoweth the Son but 
the Father ; neither knowetli any man the 
Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever 
the Son will reveal him." Matt.xi. 27. 

"As the Father knoweth me, even so 
know I the Father ; and I lay down my life 
for the sheep." John x. 15. 

" All things are delivered to me of my 
Father : and no man knoweth who the Son 
is, but the Father ; and who the Father is 
but the Son, and he to whom the Son will 
reveal Arm." Luke x. 22. 

In these texts, Christ asserts that he pos- 
sesses the same knowledge of the Father 
that the Father does of the Son. 

No created being can have the knowledge 
of God that God has of his creatures. For 
who by searching can find out God ? And, 
therefore, as Christ asserts that he has the 
same knowledge of the Father that the 
Father has of him, he must be God, and 
exist with the Father in the unity of the 
Godhead. 

" But Jesus did not commit himself unto 
them, because he knew all men ; And need 
ed not that any should testify of man : for 
h3 knew what was in man." John ii. 24, 25 

To know all men, and to know what is 
in man, must belong not to any created in- 
telligence. 

" But there are some of you that believe 
not. For Jesus knew from the beginning 
who they were that believed not, and who 
should betray him." John vi. 64. 

" He saith unto him the third time, Simon, 
son of Jonas, lovest thou me ? Peter was 



grieved because he said unto him the third 
time, Lovest thou me ? And he said unto 
him. Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou 
knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto 
him. Feed my sheep." John xxi. 17. 

The declaration is positive, " thou know- 
est all things." 

" In whom are hid all the treasures of 
wisdom and knowledge." Col. ii. 3. 

All the treasures of wisdom and know- 
ledge cannot be hid in any created being. 

" And unto the angel of the church in 
Thyatira write ; These things saith the Son 
of God. And I will kill her children with 
death ; and all the churches shall know that 
I am he which searcheth the reins and 
hearts ; and I will give unto every one of 
you according to your works." Kev. ii. 18, 
23. 

To search the hearts and try the reins of 
men, is a work which belongs only to the 
allwise mind. 

" I, the Lord, search the heart, I try the 
reins ; even to give every man according to 
his ways ; and according to the fruit of his 
doings." Jer. xvii. 10. 

It can hardly be doubted that Christ re- 
ferred to the words of the prophet. 

5. Christ is declared to possess the attri- 
bute of immutability. 

This follows from all that has been 
proved, but I will add a few texts on this 
point. 

" And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast 
laid the foundation of the earth : and the 
heavens are the works of thine hands : They 
shall perish, but thou remainest ; and they 
all shall wax old as doth a garment ; And 
as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and 
they shall he changed : but thou art the 
same, and thy years shall not fail." Heb. i. 
10-12. 

This declares the immutability of Christ 
in words. 

" Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and 
to-day, and for ever." Heb. xiii. 8. 

This is a positive declaration. 

And hath made us kings and priests unto 
God and his Father j to him be glory and 



90 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



[book II. 



dominion for ever and ever. Amen." Rev 
i. 6. 

With these remarks, I close my second 
direct argument in favor of the Divinity of 
Jesus Christ. 

III. The works which none but God can 
do, were performed by Christ. 

1. Creation was performed by Christ. 

This has been involved in proving other 
points, but shall now be made the point of 
discussion. 

I make it distinctly here, because it is 
very essential to the chain of argument I 
have proposed to furnish in favor of the De- 
ity of Christ. 

" All things were made by him and with- 
out him was not anything made tliat was 
made." John i. 3. 

" He was in the world and the world was 
made by him." Yerse 10. 

" In whom we have redemption through 
his blood even the forgiveness of sins ; AYho 
is the image of the invisible God, the first 
born of every creature : For by him were 
all things created, that are in heaven, and 
that are in earth, visible and invisible, wheth- 
er they be thrones, or dominions, or princi- 
palities, or powers : all things were created 
by him, and for him : And he is before all 
things, and by him all things consist." Col. 
i. 14-15. 

Unitarians sometimes lay great stress up- 
on the expression, " first born of every crea- 
ture," as though it disproved the assertion 
that all things were made by Christ. This 
will not relieve their position, unless, " first 
born," means first created, which cannot be. 

1. His divine nature was never created. 

2. His created nature, as he appeared the 
son of Mary, was not the first being crea- 
ted. Adam was created four thousand years 
before he was, and Abraham about two 
thousand. 

3. The expression, " first born of every 
creature," has reference to rank, and not age 
or pre-existence. 

"For whom he did foreknow, he also 
did predestinate to be conformed to the im- 
age of his Son, that he might be the first- 



born among many brethren." Rom. viii. 
29. 

First-born, here means the chief or head 
of all the redeemed and saved. So in verse 
18, following the one quoted above. 

" And he is the head of the body, the 
church ; who is the beginning, the first-born 
from the dead ; that in all things he might 
have the pre-eminence." 

It is clear then, that the expression, " first 
born of every creature," has reference to the 
rank of Christ as Messiah, into whose hands 
the goveriiment of the world has been com- 
mitted, and hence it in no degree disproves, 
or modifies his creative acts. 

I will now introduce the testimony of 
Jehovah himself, to the creative acts of the 
Son. 

' Of old hast thou laid the foundation of 
the earth ; and the heavens are the work of 
thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt 
endure ; yea, all of them shall wax old like 

garment ; as a vesture shalt thou change 
them, and they shall be changed : But thou 
art the same, and thy years shall have no 
end." Ps. cii. 25, 27. 

Now in Heb. i. 8, Paul quotes the entire 
passage from the Psalms, and declares that 

God saith it unto the Son," and adds : 

" Thou Lord, in the beginning hast laid 
the foundation of the earth, and the heav- 
ens are the work of thy hands." Heb. i. 
10. 

Here it appears that he, who is declared 
by some to have been only the natural son 
of Joseph and Mary, and by others to have 
been a created being, is declared by God, 
the Father, to be he who laid the founda- 
tion of the earth, and who with his own 
hands, formed the earth and heavens. Read- 
er, which will you believe, God or man ? 

2. The work of Providence, or uphold- 
ing and sustaining all things, is ascribed to 
Christ. 

" Upholding all things by the word of 
his power." Heb. i. 3. 

" By him all things consist." Col. i. 17 

Now I repeat this text. " Upholding all 
things by the word of his power." But it 



CHAP. III.] 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



91 



has been said that Jesus told his disciples — 
" Greater works shall ye do !" There is a 
very important difference, however, in the 
manner of doing his works, and those attrib- 
uted to his Apostles. Jesus Christ did his 
mighty works in his own name, No other 
person ever did this. When an apostle per- 
formed a miracle, he said, " Jesus maketh 
thee whole." But if Christ performed the 
work, he said, "■ I say unto thee," as in the 
case of the bed-ridden man — " I say unto 
thee arise, take up thy bed and walk." In 
his own name, he spoke to the storm tossed 
wave, " Be still." 

His providential power and care is seen 
in many of the miracles he performed. Pie 
silenced the winds, and stilled the waves, and 
broke the slumbers of death. 

To govern and uphold all things he must 
be everywhere and possess almighty power. 

JSTow how can he uphold all things — how 
can all things consist or subsist by him if 
he is not everywhere ? And if he is every- 
where present, he must be God. Some tell 
us about the supremacy of nature's laws. 
I3ut what are the Ifiws of nature ? They 
are simply God in nature, manifesting him- 
self everywhere. And if Jesus Christ is 
upholding all things, and if by him all things 
consist, he must be everywhere present in 
nature, and must be God. He must ride 
upon every zephyr that wafts its fragrant 
breath on the mountain, and along the plain. 
He it is, who gives to the flower its bloom- 
ing tint of every hue. He is seen glowing 
in the radiant sun beam. And without him 
the heart would cease to throb, and send the 
life renewing current through artery and 
vein. And, in the absence of his power, the 
universe would be without law, and every 
shining orb would miss its path, and cease 
to roll along the etherial way ; for He " up- 
holdeth all things by the word of his power ; 
and by him all things consist." 

3. He pardoned sinners, which God only 
can have a right to do. 

" When Jesus saw their faith, he said un- 
to the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be 
forgiven thee. But there were certain of 



the scribes sitting there, and reasonmg in 
their hearts. Why doth this man thus speak 
blasphemies ? who can forgive sins but God 
only ? And immediately, when Jesus per- 
ceived in his spirit, that they so reasoned 
within themselves, he said unto them. Why 
reason ye these things in your hearts? 
Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the 
palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee ; or to say, 
Arise, and take up thy bed and walk ? But 
that ye may know that the Son of man hath 
power on earth to forgive sins," &c. 

The Jews asserted that none but God 
could forgive sin. 

Christ did not contradict it, but showed 
that he had the power. 

When Christ pardoned that sinner, he 
ascended the throne above the law, and 
silencod its voice^ and hushed its thunder. 

lY. The worship which belongs only to 
God, is rendered to Christ. 

" Thou shalt have no other gods before 
me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any 
graven image, or the likeness of any thing 
that is in heaven above, or that ' is in the 
earth beneath, or that is in the water under 
the earth : Thou shalt not bow down thy- 
self to them, nor serve them : for I the Lord 
thy God am a jealous God." Exo. xx. 3-5. 

" Then saith Jesus unto him. Get thee 
hence, Satan : for ic is written. Thou shalt 
worship the Lord thy God, and him only 
shalt thou serve." Matt. iv. 10. 

These passages are quoted, simply to show 
that worship is only lawful when offered to 
God. Towards all other beings it is for- 
bidden. Now let us see if Christ may not 
be worshipped — and indeed, whether we are 
not commanded to worship him. 

" Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye 
perish from the way, when his wrath is kin- 
dled but a little. Blessed are all they that 
put their trust in him." Psalm ii. 12. 

" Saying, Where is he that is born King 
of the Jews ? for we have seen his star in 
the east, and are come to worship him. And 
when they were come into the house, they 
saw the young child with Mary, his moth- 
er, and fell down, and worshipped him : 



92 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



[book II. 



and when they had opened their treasures, 
they presented unto him gifts ; gold and 
frankincense, and myrrh." Mat. ii. 2, 11. 

"And behold there came a leper and 
worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, 
thou canst make me clean." Mat. viii. 2. 

" Then they that were in the ship came 
and worshipped him, saying, of a truth thou 
art the Son of God." Matt. xiv. 33, 

" And as they went to tell his disciples, 
behold Jesus met them, saying. All hail. 
And they came and held him by the feet, 
and worshipped him." Matt, xxviii. 9. 

" And when they saw him they worship- 
ped him, but some doubted." Matt, xxviii. 1 7. 

" And it came to pass, while he blessed 
them, he was parted from them, and carried 
up into heaven. And they worshipped him, 
and returned to Jerusalem with great joy." 
Luke xxiv. 51, 52. 

Here the worshipping disciples were yet 
in the presence of the bright cloud on which 
he passed away from them to heaven. In 
full view of the bursting glories of that vis- 
ion, and filled with the inspiration of the 
scene, they worshipped him. And lie is a 
being worthy of the worship of earth and 
heaven, to whom, with the Father, all as- 
criptions of praise may be equally awarded. 

" And I beheld, and I heard the voice of 
many angels round about the throne, and 
the beasts and the elders : and the number 
of them was ten thousand times ten thou- 
sand, and thousands of thousands ; Saying 
with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that 
was slain to receive power, and riches, and 
wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, 
and blessing. And every creature which is 
in heaven, and on the earth, and under the 
earth, and such as are in the sea, and all 
that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, 
honor, glory, and power, be unto him that 
sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb 
for ever and ever." Rev. v. 11-13. 

2 Peter iii. 18 : " But grow in grace, and 
in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ. To him be glory, both now 
and forever. Amen." 

" And again, when he bringeth in the first- 



begotten into the world, he saith, And let' 
all the angels of God worship him." 

Yes, ye seraphs, beings of the upper world, 
with your hearts of flame ; ye, too, may wor- 
ship him, for it is written, " let all the angels 
of God worship him." 

An Angel absolutely refused to receive 
worship. 

" And I, John, saw,these things, and heard 
them. And when I had heard and seen, I 
fell down to worship before the feet of the 
angel which showed me these things. Then 
saith he unto me, See thou do it not : for I 
am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the 
prophets, and of them which keep the sayings 
of this book : worship God." Rev.xxii. 8, 9. 

Also the Apostles, Paul and Barnabas, 
refused worship when it was tendered them 
by the people of Lystra. When they were 
about to offer sacrifice, Paul and Barnabas 
rent their clothes, and ran in among the 
people, crying out, sirs, why do you these 
things? Acts xiv. 11-15. 

But when Jesus had hushed the tempest by j 
a word, and stilled the waves, and the awe- j 
stricken men came and worshipped him, he ! 
breathed not a word of dissent, nor did he • 
on any other occasion intimate that the 
worship rendered him was misplaced. 

Y. Christ claimed and had ascribed to 
him absolute equality with the Father. 

" But Jesus answered them, my Father 
worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore 
the Jews sought the more to kill him, be- 
cause he not only had broken the Sabbath, 
but said also that God was his Father, mak- 
ing himself equal with God." John v. 17-19. 

Now the Jews understood him to claim 
that he was equal with God. Jesus knew 
they so understood him, but he did not deny 
or disclaim it. 

" Then answered Jesus and said unto 
them, Yerily, verily, I say unto you. The 
Son can do nothing of himself, but what he 
seeth the Father do : for what things soever 
he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 
For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth 
him all things that himself doeth : and he 
will show him greater works than these, 



CHAP. III.] 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



98 



that ye may marvel. For as the Father 
raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, 
even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. 
For the Father judgetb no man, but hath 
committed all judgment unto the Son : That 
all men should honor the Son, even as they 
honor the father. He that honoreth not 
the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath 
sent him. For as the Father hath life in him- 
self, so hath he given to the Son to have 
life in himself." John v. 17-23, 26. 

" Philip saith unto him, Lord show us 
the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith 
unto him, Have 1 been so long time with 
you, and yet hast thou not known me Philip ? 
He that liath seen me hath seen the Father ; 
and how sayest thou then, Show us the Fa- 
ther? Believest thou not that I am in the Fa- 1 
ther, and the Father in me?" John xiv. 8-10. 
"And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; 
and I am glorified in them. John xvii. 10. 
" But to us there is but one God, the Fa- 
ther, of whom are all things, and we in him ; 
and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all 
things, and we by him." 1st Cor. viii. 6. 

The prepositions here used, place Christ 
in precisely the same relation to all things 
that they do the father. 

Again, in Phil. ii. 6 : " "Who, being in 
the form of God, thought it not robbery to 
be equal with God." 

" For in him dwelleth all the fullness of 
the Godhead bodily." Col. ii. 9. 

Now, no created being would dare think 
of being equal with God. Yet Jesus Christ 
thought it not robbery to be equal with God. 
It was, peradventure, for a less ambitious 
aspiration, that Satan was doomed to in- 
famy, and fell like lightning from the battle- 
ments of heaven down deep to hell. 

The word rendered Godhead is " Theotees." 
This word properly signifies divine nature 
So that the fullness of the Godhead means 
the fullness of the divine nature. And if in 
Christ the fullness of the Divine nature 
dwelt, surely he was equal with God. 

YI. Christianity, as a saving system, pro- 
ceeds upon the assumption that Christ posses- 
ses supreme divinity, power and authority. 



The gospel proceeds to offer eternal life 
to sinners, upon the assumption that Christ 
suffered and died as the sinner's substitute, 
to make satisfaction for sin, to be the sin- 
ner's propitiation, so that sinners may re- 
ceive pardon through faith in him, and re- 
ceive the gift of eternal life, which they 
could not have had without such death. 

No mere human or created being could 
make satisfaction for sin. 

There must be something engaged, on 
whichthe law had no prior claim. Thus the 
whole gospel depends on the divinity as well 
as humanity of Christ. Unitarians have 
felt this difficulty so forcibly, that they have 
generally denied the doctrine of Christ's 
sacrificial death, as an expiation for the sins 
of men. This abandoned, the doctrine of 
pardon must be also abandoned, and all the 
associate doctrines of grace. 

On this point I shall sum up briefly. 
Those who take away the divinity of Jesus 
Christ, take away our hope of salvation. If 
I have any hope of heaven there is no other 
ground on which it rests than that I have 
laid before you in these arguments for the 
Divinity of my Lord. If that is lost, all is 
lost. Without him there is no salvation ; 
no pardon ; no rest for the soul ; no satis- 
faction for sin ; we have no claim to heaven. 
But Jesus Christ has become a surety for 
us. He is the propitiation for our sin. His 
name, to a lost world, is above every other 
name. There is no other by which we must 
be saved. And again I repeat, that if you 
take away his divinity, we have no Saviour. 
Yes, and every humble believer, every trem- 
bling penitent may well exclaim, in accents 
of grief, " They have taken away my Lord, 
and I know not where they have laid him." 



SECTION IV. 

The Hypostatic Union. 

The Hypostatic Union, or Two Natures 
of Christ. 

Trinitarians affirm that Christ, the Sa- 
viour, was both God and man, that he 
possessed absolute Divinity and entire hu- 



94 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



[book II. 



manity, and that the two natures constitute 
the one Christ. 

This is the only ground upon which the 
Scriptures can be reconciled with them- 
selves. 

One class of Scriptures affirm that he is 
" God, from everlasting, eternal, the same 
yesterday, to-day and forever." 

Another class of Scriptures present him 
as a child born ; the son of Mary ; a man, 
suffering and dying, and rising again. 
These classes of Scripture cannot both be 
true of the same nature, but the one class 
is true of his Divine nature, and the other 
class is true of his human nature. 

In this doctrine of the tw^o natures of 
Christ, is found a triumphant reply to all 
the objections urged against his absolute 
Divinity, founded upon those Scriptures 
which speak of him as inferior and subor- 
dinate to the Father. I propose at this 
point, to prove the fact of the Two Natures 
of Christ. This is the key to what would 
otherwise be contradiction or mystery. 

I. That Christ possessed two natures, is 
proved by a comparison of those two classes 
of texts, one of which affirms his Godhead, 
and the other of which affirms his humanity. 

The first point, namely, that he possessed 
a divine nature, has been proved, and the ar 
guments need not be repeated. [See Argu- 
ment f jr the Underivcd Divinity of Christ.] 

That Christ possessed human nature may 
be saon proved. 

1. He was the Son of Mary. 

" She brought forth her first-born Son." 
Luke ii. 7. 

" There was a marriage in Canaan of 
Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there." 
John ii. 1. 

2. He was the seed of Abraham. As 
Fuch he was promised to the world. 

" And in thy seed shall all the nations of 
the earth be blessed ; because thou hast 
obeyed my voice." Gen. xxii. 18. 

'' Now to Abraham and his seed, were 
the promises made. He saith not, And to 
seeds, as of many ; but as of one, And to 
thy seed which is Christ." Gal. iii. 16. 



If Christ did not possess humanity, he 
did not correspond to the person promised. 

3. Christ was the Son of David. 

" What think ye of Christ ? whose Son 
is he ? They say unto him, the Son of 
David." Matt. xxii. 42. 

" And the multitudes that went before, 
and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna 
to the Son of David ! Blessed is he that 
cometh in the name of the Lord : Hosanna 
in the highest !" Matt. xxi. 9. 

" And when Jesus departed thence, two 
blind men followed him, crying, and saying, 
" Thou Son of David have mercy on us." 
Matt. ix. 27. 

" Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our 
Lord, which was made of the seed of David 
according to the flesh." Rom. i. 3. 

4. He is declared to be a man. 

" For there is one God, and one mediator 
between God and men, the man Christ 
Jesus." 1 Tim. ii. 5. 

"For this man was counted worthy of 
more glory than IMoses, inasmuch as he 
^vho hath builded the house hath more 
honor than the house." Heb. iii. 3. 

" But this man, because he continueth 
ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood." 
Heb. vii. 24. 

"For every high priest is ordained to 
offer gifts and sacrifices : wherefore it is of 
necessity that this man have somewhat also 
to offer." Heb. viii. 3. 

" But this man aftei* he had offered one 
sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the 
right hand of God." Heb. x. 12. 

Here are five texts which call him a man, 
and more might be adduced. 

5. Christ exhibited all the usual phe- 
nomena of human nature. 

He w^as born a child, and grew to be a 
man. 

He was hungry and thirsty, and eat and 
drank. 

He grew weary and rested. 

He slept and awoke. 

He rejoiced, and was sorrowful and wept. 

He lived and he died. 

The proofs of the two points are now 



CHAP. III.] 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



95 



before us, that he was God, and that he 
was man. 

The only conclusion is that he was God 
and man. 

This harmonizes the book of Revelation 
completely. But if the two-fold nature of 
Christ be denied, then is the Bible placed at 
war with itself, as indeed it seems to be the 
aim of most opposers of the Trinitarian 
view of the subject. 

11. The two-fold nature of Christ is 
proved by the fact of his pre-existence. ■ 

Of course his pre-existence has been 
proved, while proving his divine nature, but 
I will now prove the point by another class 
of texts. 

" What and if ye shall see the Son of man 
ascend up where he was before ?" John vi. 
62. 

What does that mean ? 

"Before," means before he came into the 
world, before his incarnation. 

He was then in heaven with the Father. 

" I came forth from the Father, and am 
come into the world again, I leave the 
world, and go to the Father." John xvi. 28. 

This asserts that he existed Avith the Father 
before he came into the world, as plainly as 
it teaches that he exists with the Father now 
he has left the world. 

" For the bread of God is he which com- 
eth down from heaven, and giveth life unto 
the world. Then said they unto him. Lord, 
evermore give us this bread. And Jesus 
said unto them, I am the bread of life : he 
that cometh to me shall never hunger ; and 
he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 
John vi. 33-35. 

This asserts that he came down from hea- 
ven. 

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see 
my day ; and he saw it, and was glad. Then 
said the Jews unto him. Thou art not yet 
fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abra- 
ham ? Jesus said unto them, Yerily, verily, 
I say unto you. Before Abraham was, I 
am/' viii. 56-58. 

If our Saviour did not mean to assert 
that he existed before, and at the time that 



Abraham existed, he deceived the Jews, for 
they so understood him, and he knew it. 

He used this language in the memorable 
prayer he offered up before his passion. 
" And now, Father, glorify thou me with 
thine own self, with the glory which I had 
with thee before the world was." John xvii. 5. 

This proves that Christ possessed glory 
with the Father before the world was. 

The fact is now proved that Christ did 
exist before he was born of Mary. 

He had a pre-existing nature, which was 
not human nature. But as the Son of Mary 
he was human. 

His pre-existing nature joined to the hu- 
man nature which he derived from his mo- 
ther Mary, make two natures. 

We must either deny his pre-existence, or 
deny his humanity, or admit that he pos- 
sessed two natures. 

III. The two-fold nature of Christ is 
proved by a class of texts, which so clearly 
imply that he was both God and man, that 
they can be. true upon no other -orinciple. 
Take for instance if you please this pas- 
sage. 

" For unto us a child is born, unto us 
a Son is given ; and the government shall 
be upon his shoulder ; and his name sholl 
be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty 
God, The everlasting Father, the Prince of 
Peace." Isa. ix. 6. 

It cannot be maintained that this is all 
true of any one nature. 

It cannot all be true of a being wholly 
Divine, because he could never have been a 
child. It cannot be all true of a human 
being because he could not be called " The 
mighty God," nor could it be true of an an- 
gel for no angel was ever " a child born." 

But shallow critics have remarked upon 
this text, that it was only said he should 
" be called" the mighty God, not that he was 
the mighty God. 

The reply is, he was so called by inspira- 
tion. So called by divine appointment. 

Again it is said. Matt. i. 23, " Behold, 
a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring 
forth a son, and they shall call his name 



96 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



[book II. 



Emmanuel ; which being interpreted, is, God 
with us." 

*' God with us" — God and man. " God 
with us" — God united to us, clothed in our 
nature. 

" If David then called him Lord, how is 
he his Son ?" Matt. xxii. 45. 

Now, here is a question asked by our 
Lord which no one in heaven nor , on the 
earth can answer if Jesus was not possessed 
of two natures — ''if David then call him 
Lord, how is he his Son ?" 

This question can be answered only by 
admitting the two natures of Christ. 

It is said — " In the beginning was the 
Word, and the Word was with God, and 
the Word was God." "And the word was 
made flesh and dwelt among us." John i 
1,14. 

It is said in 1 Tim. iii. 16 : " And with- 
out controversy, great is the mystery of 
godliness ; God was manifest in the flesh, 
justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached 
unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world 
received up into glory." 

This can be explained only on the ground 
of his two natures. 

" Who, being in the form of God, thought 
it not robbery to be equal with God : But 
made himself of no reputation, and took 
upon him the form of a servant, and was 
made in the likeness of men." Phil. ii. 6, 7 

*' He took" on him the form of a servant, 
" Was made," &c. That form was human 
ity. He was, before he took it. That 
added to what he was, made two natures, 

" Forasmuch then as the children are par- 
takers of flesh and blood, he also himself 
likewise took part of the same. For verily 
he took not on him the nature of angels 
but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 
Heb.ii.14,16. 

He " took part" of the same, supposes it 
to have been added to what he was. 

He took the seed of Abraham. He 
could not act before he existed. Nor could 
this be said of you or I, or any other only 
human being. 

'* I Jesus, have sent mine angel to testify 



unto you these things in the churches. I am 
the root and the offspring of David, and 
the bright and morning star." 

The " root" and " offspring" implies the 
two natures. 

The " root" is that on which David grew ; 
his Creator. The " offspring," is that which 
grew on David ; his son. This is clear. 
And no other exposition can be, or has 
been given to it. 

lY. The office and work of Christ re- 
quired that he should combine a divine and 
human nature in one person. 

The work of making an atonement for 
the sins of men requireed it. 

1. No mere human being could atone 
for sin. 

If Christ was a mere human being, 
which he must have been if he did not pos- 
sess two natures, he was under the same 
law to God that all other human beings 
are, and could not atone for the sins of 
other human beings. 

In order to an atonement, there must be 
something engaged, on which the law had 
no claim. 

Every created being is bound to devote 
all his powers to the Creator, during the 
entire extent of his rational existence. 

But Christ has made an atonement for 
the sins of men. This I will meet and prove 
in its proper place. 

2. None but a human being could have 
made an atonement for inen. 

To redeem human nature, right rea- 
son, says human nature, must be the offer- 
ing. 

For this we have the opinion of St. 
Paul : — " Forasmuch, then, as the children 
are partakers of flesh and blood, he also 
himself likewise took part of the same: 
that through death, he might destroy him 
that had the power of death, that is, the 
devil." 

Death was the penalty of the lav/, and 
the death of the body was one of the con- 
sequences involved. 

Christ took our nature and died and rose 
again, to redeem us from the power of death. 



CHAP. III.] 



* THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



9T 



The fact that he was a human being, our 
brother, allies us to him, and through him, 
to God. The two natures were necessary 
to render him a suitable mediator between 
God and men. 

" There is one God and one Mediator be- 
tween God and men." 1st Tim. ii. 5. 

*' Now a Mediator is not a Mediator of 
one, but God is one." Gal. iii. 20. 

'- He ever live th to make intercession for 
them." Heb. vii. 25. 

" Christ is entered into heaven itself, now 
to appear in the presence of God for us." 
Heb. ix. 24. 

Humanity is there, and he represents us 
in the court of heaven, with one hand on the 
throne, and the other upon us, his poor kins- 
men. 

Y. The doctrine of the two natures of 
Christ may be urged from the fact that no 
other account can be given of his nature 
and character. 

The Scriptures declare him to be God 
and man, but they pronounce him nothing 
else. 

If he is not God and man, what is he ? 

It will be said that he is the Son of God. 

But what is the Son of God ? Is he a 
God ? or is he a man ? or is he neither ? 

I press the question. What is he ? 

If it be said that he was God and not 
man, then God was once born a child, and 
grew, and lived, and died. 

If it be said that he was a man and not 
God, then we have only a human Saviour, a 
human Eedeemer, and a human Intercessor, 
whose arm is but an arm of flesh. 

It is written, " Cursed be the man that 
trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm." 
Jer. xvii. 5. 

But of Christ it is said, " Blessed are all 
they that put their trust in him." Now 
put that and that together. 

If it be said that he was neither God nor 
man, what was he ? Was he an angel ? 
No, for angels cannot die. 

But admit that he was God and man, and 
all is plain, and we have a Saviour worthy 
of everlasting trust. One to whom we can 
7 



commit our souls without distrust or fear of 
being confounded. Beneath his protection 
we may rest secure, though the universe be 
moved. For he upholdeth all things by the 
word of his power. This is our Saviour — 
this is our Christ. In him we now trust, 
and shall for ever and for evermore. 



SECTION V. 

The Underivecl Divinity and Personality 
of the Holy Ghost. 

The points to be proved are, that the 
Holy Ghost is of one substance, power and 
eternity with the Father, existing personal- 
ly distinct, yet in unity of the Godhead. 

I. The Holy Ghost is called by the names 
by which God is known. " And one cried 
to another, and said. Holy, holy, is the Lord 
of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory. 
Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, 
whom shall I send, and who will go for us ? 
Then I said, here am I, send me. And he 
said, go and tell this people. Hear ye in- 
deed, but understand not ; and see ye indeed, 
but perceive not." Isa. vi. 3, 8, 9. 

The point here, is this, the Lord sent the 
prophet Isaiah. 

The speaker said, whom shall I send, and 
who will go for us. Us, the Father, Son 
and Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost was the 
speaker who sent Isaiah, and he is called the 
Lord, the Jehovah. This is proved by the 
words of Paul. 

" And when they agreed not among them- 
selves, they departed, after that Paul had 
spoken one word ; Well spake the Holy 
Ghost by Esaias the prophet, unto our fath- 
ers, Saying, Go unto this people, and say. 
Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not under- 
stand ; and seeing ye shall see, and not per- 
ceive." Acts xxviii. 25, 26. 

The prophet says, the Lord, the Jehovah 
sent him, and told him what to say. 

Paul says, he spake by the Holy Ghost, 
or rather, that the Holy Ghost spake by the 
prophet. 

" And he called the name af the place 



98 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



[book II. 



Massah, and Meribali, because of the chid- 
ing of tlio children of Israel, and because 
they tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord 
among us, or not?" Exo. xvii. 7. 

Compare this with Heb. iii. 7-9 : " Where- 
fore (as the Holy Ghost saith,) To-day, if ye 
will hear his voice. Harden not your hearts, 
as m the provocation, in the day of tempta- 
tion in the wilderness ; When your, fathers 
tempted me, proved me, and saw my works 
forty years." 

In the first of these texts, it is affirmed 
that they tempted the Lord Jehovah. 

In the second, the Holy Ghost says, " your 
fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my 
works forty years, 

" And it was revealed unto him by the 
Holy Ghost, that he should not see death 
•before he had seen the Lord's Christ. Lord, 
•now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, 
according to thy word : For mine eyes have 
seen thy salvation." Luke ii. 26, 29, 30. 

Here, what was revealed to him by the 
Holy Ghost, he calls " thy word," addressing 
the Lord. 

" But as many as received him, to them 
gave he poAver to become the sons of God, 
even to them that believe on his name : 
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the 
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but 
of God." John i. 12, 13. 

" For whatsoever is born of God over- 
cometh the world : and this is the victory 
that overcometh the world, even our faith." 
1 John V. 4. 

" Jesus answered, Yerily, verily, I say 
unto thee. Except a man be born of water 
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
kingdom of God." John iii. 5. 

In the first two of these texts, men are 
said to be born of God. 

In the third text, they are said to be 
born of the Spirit. 

" But Peter said, Ananias, why hath 
Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy 
Ghost, and to keep back part of the price 
of the land? While it remained, was it 
not thine own? and after it was sold, 
was it not in thine own power ? Why hast 



thou conceived this thing in thy heart? 
Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto 
God." Acts V. 3, 4. 

The conduct of Ananias is called lying to 
the Holy Ghost ; and in the next breath, it 
is declared to be lying unto God. 

The Holy Ghost then, is God. 

" Whom God hath raised up, having 
loosed the pains of death : because it was 
not possible that he should be holden of it." 
Acts ii. 24. 

'•'For Christ also hath once suflered for 
sins, the just for the unjust, that he might 
bring us to God, being put to death in the 
flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." 1 Peter 
iii. 18. 

In the first of these texts, it is said that 
God raised Christ from the dead. 

In the second, it is declared that he was 
quickened by the Spirit. 

" All Scripture is given by inspiration 
of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for 
reproof, for correction, for instruction in 
righteousness." 2 Tim. iii. 16. 

In accordance with this declaration we 
read, " The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 
speak unto the children of Isra,el." 

" Then came the word of the Lord to 
Isaiah, saying." Isa. xxxviii. 4. 

So Jeremiah says, " Moreover the word 
of the Lord came unto me saying." Jer. 
ii. 1. 

" The word of the Lord came expressly 
unto Ezekiel." Eze. i. 3. 

" The word of the Lord that came unto 
Hozea." Hozoa. i. 1. 

" The word of the Lord that came unto 
Joel." Joel i. 1. 

" The word of the Lord came unto Jo- 
nah." Jonah i. 1. 

" The burden of the word of the Lord to 
Israel by Malachi." i. 1. 

" For the prophecy came not in old time 
by the will of man : but holy men of God 
spake as they ivere moved by the Holy 
Ghost." 2 Peter i. 21. 

It is obvious from these remarks that the 
Holy Ghost is God. The word of the Lord 
came, but it came by the Holy Ghost. 



CHAP. III.] 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



99 



II. Personal actions are, throughout the 
Scriptures, attributed to the Holy Ghost, 
Holy Spirit, and Spirit of God. 

" And the earth was without form, and 
void ; and darkness was upon the face of 
the deep : and the Spirit of God moved 
upon the face of tlie waters. And God 
said, Let there be light : and there was 
light." Gen. i. 2, 3. 

The Spirit of God moved upon the face 
of the waters — God said let there be light, 
Here is a clear distinction of persons. 

" Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are 
created ; and thou renewest the face of the 
earth." Ps. civ. 30. 

God is the sender, and the Spirit is the 
sent — The Spirit is represented as creatin 

" AVhither shall I go from thy Spirit ? or 
Vt'hither shall I flee from thy presence ? If 
I ascend up into heaven, thou art there ; If 
I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art 
there. 

" If I take the wings of the morning, and 
dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea ; 
E\en there shall thy hand lead me, and thy 
right hand shall hold me." Ps. cxxxix. T-10. 

The Spirit of God, and the presence of 
God, are represented as two things. 

Both are represented as everywhere. 

" The Spirit of the Lord God is upon 
me ; because the Lord hath anointed me 
to preach good tidings unto the meek." 
Isa. Ixi. 1. 

" And he began to say unto them. This 
day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.'' 
Luke iv. 21. 

What was upon him, if we deny the per- 
sonality of the Spirit. 

" Then the Spirit took me up, and ] 
heard behind me a voice of a great rushing 
saying, Blessed be the glory of the Lord 
from his place. I heard also the noise of the 
wings of the living creatures that to ached 
one another, and the noiseof the wheels over 
against them, and a noise of a great rush- 
ing. So the Spirit lifted me up, and took 
me away, and I went in bitterness, in the 
heat of my spirit : but the hand of the Lord 
was strong upon me." Ezekiel iii. 12-14 



Here the Spirit actually transported the 
prophet. 

" And Jesus, when he was baptised, went 
up straightway out of the water : and, lo, 
the heavens were opened unto him, and he 
saw the Spirit of God descending like a 
dove, and lighting upon him : And lo, a 
voice from heaven, saying, This is my be- 
loved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 
Matt. iii. 16, 17. 

Here we see Christ coming up from the 
water, the Spirit descending, and the Fa- 
ther speaking from heaven. 

" Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit 
into the wilderness, to be tempted of the 
devil." Matt. iv. 1. 

The Spirit here performed a personal 
action. 

But when they shall lead you, and de- 
liver you up, take no thought beforehand 
what ye shall speak, neither do ye premed- 
itate ; but whatsoever shall be given you in 
that hour, that speak ye : for it is not ye that 
speak, but the Holy Ghost." Mark xiii. 11. 

The Holy Ghost is here said to speak in, 
or through men. This implies intelligence, 
as well as personality. 

" And there appeared unto them cloven 
tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each 
of them : And they were all filled with the 
Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other 
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." 
Acts ii. 3, 4. 

" Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go 
near, and join thyself to this chariot." 
Acts viii. 29. 

" Take heed therefore unto yourselves, 
and to all the flock, over the which the 
Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to 
feed the church of God, which he hath pur- 
chased with his own blood." Acts xx. 28. 

Here is an official act, said to have been 
done by the Holy Ghost. 

" The Spirit itself beareth witness with 
our spirit, that we are the children of God : 
Rom. viii. 16. 

How can the Spirit bear witness with 
our spirit, if it is not a personal identity 
and agent. 



100 



THE UNITY OP THE GODHEAD. 



[book IL 



" Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our in- 
firmities : for we know not what we should 
pray for as we ought : but the Spirit it- 
self maketh intercession for us, with groan- 
ings, which cannot be uttered." Kom. viii. 
26. 

The Spirit, to help, must be, not only a 
personal identity, but an intelligent, active 
agent, or power. 

*' But we are bound to give thanks always 
to God for you, brethren beloved of the 
Lord, because God hath from the beginning 
chosen you to salvation through sanctifica- 
tion of the Spirit, and belief of the truth." 
2 Thes. ii. 13. 

Here the Spirit is represented as the 
great agent in our salvation. ,. 

"We are sanctified by the Spirit. 

" Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that 
in the latter times some shall depart from 
the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, 
and doctrines of devils." 1 Tim. iv. 1. 

" How much more shall the blood of 
Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, of- 
fered himself without spot to God, purge 
your conscience from dead works, to serve 
the living God ?" Heb. ix. 14. 

Here we have the whole Trinity. 

Christ offering himself, through the eter- 
nal Spirit, to God, the Father. 

The Spirit possesses the attribute of eter- 
nity. 

" And the spirit and the bride say, Come. 
And let him that heareth say, Come. And 
let him that is athirst come : and whosoever 
will, let him take the water of life freely." 
Kev. xxii. 17. 

III. There are many texts of Scripture, 
which not only imply the personality of the 
Holy Ghost, but which can never be ex- 
plained upon any other principle. 

" Wherefore, I say unto you, all manner 
of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven un- 
to men : but the blasphemy against the Ho- 
ly Ghost, shall not be forgiven unto men. 
And whosoever speaketh a word against 
the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him : 
but whoso3ver speaketh against the Holy 
Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither 



in this world, neither in the world to come." 
Matt. xii. 31, 32. 

Call the Holy Ghost what you may, this 
text will never make sense, unless you ad- 
mit its personality. 

Call it an attribute of God. 

Call it the power of God. 

Call it a manifestation of God. 

Call it the influence of God. 

There is no ground for the unpardonable- 
ness of the sin, if you deny the personality 
of the Spirit. 

" And the Holy Ghost descended in a 
bodily shape like a dove upon him ; and a 
voice came from heaven, which said. Thou 
art my beloved Son ; in thee I am well 
pleased." Luke iii. 22. 

No one can tell what it was that descend- 
ed, if the personal existence of the Holy 
Ghost be denied. 

Let Unitarians tell what we are to un- 
derstand by the Holy Ghost in this text. 

" Ye stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in 
heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy 
Ghost : as your fathers did, so do ye." 
Acts vii. 51. 

Here the Holy Ghost is made to be a uni- 
form something, which both they and their 
fathers resisted. 

What did they resist ? 

" AVhile Peter thought on the vision, the 
Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek 
thee." Acts x. 19. 

Can any one tell what or who spake to 
Peter, without admitting the personality of 
the Spirit ? 

" How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth 
with the Holy Ghost and with power ; wlio 
went about doing good, and healing all that 
were oppressed of the devil : for God was 
with him." Acts x. 38. 

With what did God anoint Jesus ? 

With himself? Yv^ith one of his attri- 
butes ? With a divine manifestation ? 

"As they ministered to the Lord, ana 
fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me 
Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto 
I have called them." Acts xiii. 2. 

Here the Holy Ghost represents himsell 



CHAP. III.] 



THE UNITY OP THE GODHEAD. 



101 



as a personal identity, by applying to him- 
self the personal pronoun me, and I. Here 
are three points : 

1. The Holy Ghost had called Barnabas 
and Paul. 

2. The Holy Ghost spake to the church 
or their leaders. 

3. The Holy Ghost required that they be 
set apart for him or to him. 

" And when Paul had laid his hand upon 
them, the Holy Ghost came on them ; and 
they spake with tongues, and prophesied." 
Acts xix. 6. 

There was something that came on them. 
What was it ? 

It was something v/hich gave them the 
use of language before unknown. 

It was something which gave them views 
of truth not before possessed, for they proph- 
esied or taught. 

What was that which came upon them, 
and did all this, called the Holy Ghost ? 

" And my speech, and my preaching, was 
not with enticing words of man's wisdom, 
but in demonstration of the Spirit, and of 
power." 1 Cor. ii. 4. 

The Spirit is here represented as a con- 
vincing or proof giving agent, attending and 
operating through Paul's preaching. What 
was it ? 

" But God hath revealed them unto us by 
his spirit : for the Spirit searcheth all things, 
yea, tlw deep things of God. 1 Cor. ii. 10. 

1. God reveals the high and holy things 
he has prepared for us. 

2. This is done by the Spirit. 

3. And this revelation the Spirit is capa- 
ble of making, because he searcheth all 
things, yea, the deep things of God." 

How can this be explained ? 

If by the Spirit you mean God himself, 
or any of his attributes, denying the dis- 
tinction of persons in the Godhead, you make 
Paul say that God reveals these things unto 
us by himself, and that God searches the 
deep things of himself. 

If you deny the essential divinity of the 
Spirit, you make some created or mere ideal 
being search the deep things of God. 



" For through him we both have access 
by one Spirit unto the Father." Eph. ii. 18. 

The word " both," denotes Jews and Gen- 
tiles, both come to God by the same way. 

Here we have the whole Trinity. 

1. We have access to the Father, the first 
person in the Trinity. 

2. This access is through Christ, the Sen, 
the second person in the Trinity. 

3. This access to the Father through the 
Son, is by the Spirit, the third person in the 
Trinity. 

Deny the personality of the Spirit, and 
who can tell by whom or by what it is that 
we have access to the Father through 
Christ ? 

What is the third agent ? 
lY. The difficulty which must attend every 
attempt to explain what the Holy Ghost is, 
if its divinity and personality be denied, must 
go far to confirm the Trinitarian view. 

What is the all-pervading, enlightening, 
sanctifying and saving agent, called the Holy 
Ghost? 

1. Is it a created spirit, as an angel, or 
any created being. 

It cannot be for many reasons. 

(1.) It is called '^he eternal Spirit." 
Heb. 9, 14. 

(2.) It is called the Holy Spirit, Holy 
Ghost, God's Spirit, and the Spirit of God, 
by way of distinction. If it be a created 
being, it is no more the Holy Spirit, or the 
Spirit of God, than an angel or the Spirit 
of a just man made perfect, for they are 
God's, and are holy. 

(3.) The Holy Ghost, so called, is one, 
but created spirits are, with us, numberless. 
There is an innumerable company of angels 
and spirits of just men made perfect. They 
are all holy spirits, and j^et there is but one 
Holy Spirit, called the Holy Ghost. 

(4.) The works which are attributed to 
the Holy Ghost clearly prove that he is no 
created spirit. 

'•'■ The Spirit of God moved upon the face 
of the waters." Gen. i. 2. 

" By his Spirit he garnished the heavens." 
Job. xxvi. 13. 



102 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



[book II. 



He inspired the prophets. " Holy men 
of God spake, as they were moved by the 
Holy Ghost." 2. Peter i. 21. 

" All Scriptm-e is given by inspiration of 
God." 2 Tim. iii. 16. 

If the Holy Ghost that inspired the 
prophets was a created being, it is not given 
by inspiration of God. 

The Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary the 
Mother of Jesus, and he was begotten by 
the Holy Ghost. Mary was liis mother, but 
was a created being his father ? What was 
that being ? 

The Holy Ghost is the Regenerator and 
Sanctifier of mankind. 

" Not by works of righteousness which 
we have done, but according to his mercy 
he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, 
and renewing of tlie Holy Ghost." Titus iii 5. 

He who would trust the renewal of his 
heart to any created being, does not know 
himself, the depth and strength of the de- 
pravity of his heart. 

(5.) The fact that the one only unpardon- 
able sin is a sin against the Holy Ghost, 
proves that he cannot be a created being. 

2. Is the Holy Ghost called an attribute 
of God ? The subject will be beset with equal 
difficulties, and shrouded in equal mystery. 

(1.) It suggests the question, what, or 
which attribute of Jehovah is the Holy 
Ghost? 

The attributes of God are known only as 
God has revealed himself. To say that the 
Holy Ghost is an attribute of God, is to say 
that it is one of the known attributes. What 
is it? 

Is it his eternity. Certainly not, for that 
is a mere fact and quality which pertains to 
all the attributes of God. 

Is it his omnipotence or power ? It can- 
not be, for it is more than power ; Tbe Holy 
Ghost develops intelligence and volition, 
neither of wliich belong to power as a dis- 
tinct attribute. 

" The Holy Ghost said, separate me, Bar- 
nabas and Saul." Acts xiii. 2. 

"It seemed good to the Holy Ghost." 
Acts XV. 28. 



Moreover, power has no existence only as 
it resides in an operative agent. To say, 
therefore, that the Holy Ghost is the power 
of God, as an attribute, is to say that it is 
God himself. 

Is it his omnipresence ? 

Surely not. This is a mere quality of the 
divine essence, or mode of the divine exist- i 
ence. The intelligence, will, and personal ac- i 
tions of the Holy Ghost cannot be referred ^ 
to the mere quality of existing everywhere. 

Is it his omniscience or knowledge ? The 
Holy Ghost exerts a power that does not 
belong to mere knowledge. 

The Spirit transportsd the prophet. Eze. 
iii. 12 : " Then the Spirit took me up, and 
I heard behind me, a voice of a great rush- 
ing, saying, Blessed be the glory of the Lord 
from his place." 

Is it his immutability? Surely not. This 
will not only, not be pretended, but it is im- 
passible that immutability, as a distinct at- 
tribute, should be capable of such manifesta- 
tions and actions, as are attributed to the 
Holy Ghost. Immutability is a quality 
that pertains to all the other attributes, 
and pervades the divine nature. 

Is it said that it is the attribute of Jus- 
tice ? It cannot be, for it administers grace 
and comfort, entirely beyond the ministra- 
tions of pure justice. 

Is it Goodness, love, or mercy ? Surely 
not. The Spirit is light and power, and ex- 
erts physical and moral energy as well as 
to communicate goodness, grace and love. 

The Spirit, or Holy Ghost, then, is no one 
attribute of God. 

3. Is there anything else that you can 
call the Holy Ghost, which will designate 
him as something less than divinity itself? 

Is it an emanation from God. It cannot 
be. This would prove that it is God himself, 
or else that God is divisible, and that parts 
become detached and fly off". 

Is it the influence of God ? No, for influ- 
ence is but another word for power, and like 
power, cannot exist only as it resides in, and 
is exerted by the agent to which it belongs. 
The influence of God is God himself, exertr 



CHAP. III.] 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



103 



ing his own power ; just as a thought is the 
mind thinking. 

Is it the exerted energy of God ? No, 
for the exerted energy of God, is but anoth- 
er word for the influence or poAver of God, 
and can be nothing more nor less than God 
acting. 

There can, then, be no account given of 
the Holy Ghost, if the Trinitarian view be 
denied ? 



SECTION VI. 

The Trinity in Unitij. 

The doctrine of the Trinity is well stated 
in the following article of faith. 

" There is but one living and true God, 
everlasting, of infinite power, wisdom and 
goodness ; the maker and preserver of all 
things, visible and invisible. And in unity 
of this Godhead there are three persons, of 
one substance, power, and eternity ; the 
Father, the Son, [the Word] and the Holy 
Ghost." 

I. The doctrine of this article is a neces- 
sary consequence of the points already ad- 
mitted or proved. 

1. It is admitted that there is but one 
only living and true God. 

2. It is admitted that the person called 
tlie Father in this article, is God in the 
fullest and highest sense, 

3. It has been proved that the Son or 
"Word is God, possesses all the names and 
titles, all the attributes, performs ^1 the 
acts, and receives all the worship which be- 
long to the Father. 

4. It has been proved that the Holy 
Ghost is God, possessing the name and 
attributes of God. 

From these points thus admitted or 
proved, it follows that the Father, Son and 
Holy Ghost, exist in the unity of the God 
head. 

As it is clear that the three are God, it 
must follow that they exist in the unity of 
one Godhead, or that there are three Gods 

But it is admitted that there is but one 



God, therefore the three already proved to 
possess absolute divinity, must exist in the 
unity of the Godhead. 

II. The doctrine under consideration, re- 
ceives additional support from an implied 
plurality in the Godhead, found in the 
Scriptures. 

1. The very name God, Elohim, in the 
Hebrew, is admitted to be in the plural 
form. 

Elohim, is said to be the plural of El, or 
Eloah. 

" Elohim, is the same as Eloah ; one be- 
ing singular, the other plural. Neverthe- 
less, Elohim is generally construed iu the 
singular, particularly when the true God is 
spoken of ; wlien false gods are spoken of, 
it is rather construed in the plural." — Rob- 
insoii's Calmet ; word Eloah. 

" The name of God occurs frequently in 
both the singular and plural, but never in 
the dual." — Roy, word Elohim. 

Gesenius admits the word to be plural, 
and refers to Gen. xx. 13. " God caused 
me to wander, he renders it, " the Gods 
caused me to wander." 

" Let those who have any doubt, whether 
Elohim, when applied to the true God, Je- 
hovah, be plural or not, consult the follow- 
ing passages, where they will find it joined 
with adjectives, verbs and pronouns plural." 
— Parkhust. 

The author gives nearly thirty texts. 
Among them are Gen. i. 26 ; iii. 22 ; xi. 
7 : XX. 13 ; xxxi. 7, 53 ; xxxv. 7. 

This fact is alluded to in the following 
comment on the sixth section of Leviticus, 
by Rabbi, Simeon or Solomon ben Joachi. 
" Come and see the mystery of the word 
Elohim ; there are three degrees, and each de- 
gree by itself alone, and yet, notwithstand- 
ing, they are all one, and are not divided 
from each other." 

I have not the original of this, but find it 
quoted by Dr. Clarke, in his note on Gen. 
i. 1. I also find it quoted in Eoy's He- 
brew and English Dictionary. Word Elo- 
him. 

2. There are several texts in which the 



104 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



[book II. 



name of God is connected with the plural 
pronouns. 

" God said, let us make man in our im- 
age, after our likeness." Gen. i. 26. 

Here are two plural pronouns, and one 
of them repeated. Let us make — in our 
image — after our likeness. 

To whom did God speak ? 

Not to angels, for several reasons. 

(1.) Man was to be Made after the image 
and likeness of the speaker and the spoken 
to. Our likeness and our image, implies 
that the speaker and the spoken to were of 
one essence, presenting one likeness and 
image. If God addressed angels, in whose 
image was man ma.de ? In the image of 
God or in the image of angels ? 

That he was made in the image of the 
Creator is clearly proved. 

" For a man indeed ought not to cover 
his head, forasmuch as he is the image and 
glory of God.'* 1 Cor. xi. 7. 

" Lie not one to another, seeing that ye 
have put off the old man with his deeds ; 
And have put on the new man, which is 
rcnev/ed in knowledge after the image of 
him that created him." Col. iii. 9, 10. 

" And be renewed in the spirit of your 
mind ; And that ye put on the new man, 
which after God is created in righteousness 
and true holiness." Eph. iv. 23, 24. 

" Therewith bless we God, even the Fa- 
ther ; and therewith curse we men, which 
are made after the similitude of God." 
James iii. 9. 

These texts prove that it was after the 
image of God that man was created. 

(2.) There is not the slightest evidence 
that the angels had anything to do with 
creating man, or anything else. ISTo allu- 
sion is found to any such idea, in all the 
Scriptures. 

" And the Lord God said, behold the man 
has becojne as one of us to know good and 
evil." Gen. iii. 23. 

" Go to, let us go down, and there con- 
found their language, that they may not 
understand one another's speech." Gen. xi. 1. 

3. The Scriptures often distinctly refer 



to the three persons in the Godhead, and ' 
associate them as equal, in the solemn 
transactions in which God is concerned. 

" In the year that king XJzziah died, I 
saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, 
high and lifted up, and his train filled the 
temple. Above it stood the seraphims : 
each one had six wings ; with twain he 
covered his 'face, and with twain he cov- 
ered his feet, and with twain he did fly. 
And one cried unto another, and said. Holy, 
holy, holy is the Lord of hosts ; the whole 
earth is full of his glory. Also I heard the 
voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall ' I 
send, and who will go for us ? Then said I, 
Here am I ; send me." Isa. vi. 1, 2, 3, 8. 

Here the prophet saw the Lord. It has 
been said that the Lord here seen was 
Jesus Christ. 

The seraphims cried one to another, holy, 
holy, holy is the Lord of hosts. This may 
be significant of the three persons in the 
Godhead. 

The prophet then heard the voice of the 
Lord, saying, " whom shall I send, and who 
will go for us." Here is a plurality of per- 
sons for whom the prophet went. 

But the prophet went for the " one living 
and true God ;" there is therefore, a plural- 
ity of persons in the Godhead. 

" Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, 
and read ; no one of these shall fail, none 
shall want her mate : for my mouth it hath 
commanded, and his Spirit it hath gathered 
them." Isa. xxxiv. 16. 

Here are three personalities, the speaker, 
my mouth hath commanded. 

The second person is represented by the 
pronoun his, in the possessive case. 

The third person is the Spirit, " his spirit, 
it hath gathered them." 

" Come ye near unto me, hear ye this ; I 
have not spoken in secret from the begin- 
ning ; from the time that it was, there am 
I : and now the Lord God and his Spirit 
hath sent me. Thus saith the Lord, thy 
Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel ; I am 
the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to 
profit, which leadeth thee by the way that 



CHAP. III.] 



THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD. 



105 



thou shouldest go. Ob that thou hadst heark- 
ened to my commandments ! then had thy 
peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as 
the waves of the sea." Isaiah xlviii. 16-18. 

Here are the speaker, the Lord God, and 
his Spirit, making three. God and his 
Spirit are clear. The Speaker may be the 
propliet, Cyrus, or the Messiah. 

" Yet now be strong, Zerubbabel, saith 
the Lord ; and be strong, Joshua son of 
Josedech, the high priest ; and be strong, 
all ye people of the land, saith the Lord, 
and work : for I am with you, saith the 
Lord of Hosts : According to the word 
that I covenanted with you when ye came 
out of Egypt, so my Spirit reraaineth among 
you : fear ye not. For thus saith the Lord 
of Llosts, Yet once, it is a little while, and I 
will shake the heavens, and the earth, and 
the sea, and the dry land ; and I will shake 
all nations, and the desire of all nations shall 
come : and I will fill this house with glory, 
saith the Lord of hosts." Haggai. ii. 4-7. 

Here are three persons, the speaker, the 
Lord of hosts ; His spirit that remained 
among them ; and, the desire of all nations 
that was to come. 

" And Jesus, when he was baptised, went 
up straightway out of the water : and, lo, 
the heavens were opened unto him, and he 
saw the Spirit of God descending like a 
dove and light upon him." Matt, iii, 16. 

Here we have a clear view of the three 
persons in the Godhead, the Son coming up 
from the water, the Lloly Ghost lighting upon 
him, and the Father, speaking from heaven. 

" How much more shall the blood of 
Christ, who through the eternal Spirit of- 
fered himself without spot to God, purge 
your conscience from dead works to serve 
the living God?" Heb. ix. 14. 

Llere is the whole Trinity concerned in 
the work of redemption. 

God the Father to whom the offering is 
made. 

Jesus Christ, the Sacrifice who offered 
himself to God. 

The eternal Spirit, through whom the 
offering was made. 



" Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
Matt, xxviii. 19. 

Baptism is a most solemn act of Christian 
worship, and it is performed in the name of 
the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. * ■ 

Baptism is also a most solemn act of con- 
secration to God. 

It is the naming of the person baptized 
after God, and he is named after the whole 
Trinity. Baptism is the seal of God's cove- 
nant, the introductory rite into covenant with 
God, by which God covenants to be our God, 
and we covenant to be exclusively his people. 

This makes the form of Baptism absolute 
proof of the Trinity. 

If the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, do 
not exist in unity of the Godhead, then are 
Christians consecrated to one God, one crea- 
ture, and one attribute or influence, or some- 
thing else, as fancy may explain. 

Then does humanity, by baptism, enter 
into covenant vvith one God, one creature, and 
one attribute, influence, or something else. 

" But ye, beloved, building up yourselves 
on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy 
Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God, 
looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus 
Christ unto eternal life." Jude 20, 21. 

Here we have the three persons of the 
Godhead referred to, as all equally concerned 
in our worship and our salvation. 

" Keep yourselves in the love of God." 

" Praying in the Holy Ghost." 

" Looking for the mercy of our Lord Je- 
sus Christ, unto eternal life." 

" The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
the love of God, and the communion of the 
Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen." 2 
Cor. xiii. 14. 

Here the threefold blessing pronounced, 
corresponds to the three in the' unity of the 
Godhead. 

In the preceding text, the Holy Ghost is 
named first ; God, by which the Father is 
meant, second ; and our Lord Jesus Christ 
last. In this text, Christ is mentioned first, 
God the second, and the Holy Ghost last. 



106 



THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN". 



[book II. 



CHAPTER lY. 

THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 

SECTION I . 
Man was Created Holy. 

I. Man was the effect of a Iioly cause. 
God created man ; and as man was passive, 
and not active, in liis own creation, he could 
have possessed no nature, powers, nor even 
tendency of powers., which he did not re- 
ceive from the plastic hand of his Creator. 
God imparted to man all that he possessed, 
when he first awoke to conscious being, even 
the first breath he drew ; hence, if man con- 
tained in his nature, any moral evil, God 
must have been its author. Man's body, 
which was formed of the earth, must have 
been a lifeless and irrational form of mat- 
ter ; and could not have possessed any 
moral quality, before it was animated by a 
rational soul ; all, therefore, that man pos- 
sessed in his first existence that was moral 
was imparted to him when God breathed 
into his nostrils the breath of life, and con- 
stituted him a living soul ; therefore, if man 
was morally corrupt, or contained in his 
nature any propensity to evil, it must have 
been infused by Jehotah's breath ! Now, as 
God is holy, nothing but holiness could have 
proceeded from him ; man, therefore, must 
have been holy in his first existence, as he 
came from the hands of his divine author. 

The only position which can be occupied 
in opposition to this argument, with any de- 
gree of plausibility, is that which affirms 
that man was neither holy or unholy, good 
or bad, until he made himself so by his own 
action. This position cannot be maintained. 
Its fallacy lies in overlooking the fact, that 
man has a moral nature or constitution, 
which lies back of all action, but for which 
his actions would possess no more moral 
quality than the actions of brutes. He did 
not create his moral constitution by his ac- 
tion, but his moral constitution rendered 



him capable of performing moral actions, 
and necessarily rendered every act morally 
good or bad. God's law takes cognizance 
of the state of the heart, and demands its 
supreme affections, and, as the mind is never 
quiescent, it acted as soon as it existed, and 
there can be no doubt that, as God breathed 
into man the breath of life, the moral ma- 
chinery started in the right direction, and 
must have been holy as soon as it existed. 
If man's first volition was holy, as no doubt 
it was, there must have been a cause why it 
was holy, and no better reason can be ren- 
dered why man's first volition was holy, 
than that the moral nature which put it 
forth, came from the plastic hand of a holy 
God. 

It would be no reply to the argmnent, to say 
that the rocks, and hills, and aniraa's, were 
also the effect of a holy cause, for these do 
not possess a moral nature, are not moral be- 
ings. But man did, yea, must have possessed 
moral powers before he did, or could perform 
the first moral action ; he must have been 
a moral being, under moral responsibilities, 
before he could perform a moral action, and 
being a moral being, under moral obliga- 
tions, he must have been morally good or 
bad ; and that he was holy, is certain, from 
the nature of the cause that produced him. 

II. " God created man in his own im- 
age." Gen. i. 27. By the image of God, in 
this text, we understand the moral likeness 
of God, consisting in righteousness and true 
holiness. No other consistent explanation 
can be given of the subject. It Avould be 
absurd to say that the image of God con- 
sists in bodily form, for, if form be applied 
to the Deity, such form must be bounded by 
geometrical limits ; which is opposed to 
infinity and omipresence, perfections which 
are essential to the Supreme Being. Nor 
can it be consistently said, that the image 
of God wherein man was created, consisted 
in his having authority over the other crea- 
tures, which God created, as his vicegerent 
on earth, for this was only a circumstance 
in his being, and not an imago in which he 
was made. 



CHAP. IV.] 



THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 



107 



Gen. i. 26 : " God said, let us make manjness." The image of God, tlien, consists in 
in our own image, and let him have do- righteousness and true holiness ; and as man 
minion," Here man's creation in the im- 
age of God, and his having dominion, are 
marked as two distinct circumstances ; the 
one refers to his creation, the other to the 
design of his creation, or to the circum- 
stances in which he was placed after he was 
created. Man was created in the image of 
God, but he did not possess dominion until 
after he was created ; therefore, the image 
of God, in which he was created, could not 
have consisted in his having authority ov^t 
this lower world, as God's vicegerent, be- 
cause the image existed before he possessed 
the authority : he was created in the. image, 
but the authority was given him after he 
was created. It must appear equally ab- 
surd to contend, as some have, that the im- 
age of God, in which man was created, con- 
sisted exclusively, in the immortality of his 
soul. There is no evidence, that God's im- 
mortality constitutes his image, any more 
than his justice, holiness, or any other per- 
fection of his nature. Immortality is one of 
the divine perfections, and if one of the per- 
fections of God be embraced in the image 
which he stamped upon his rational offspring, 
it is reasonable to suppose that every commu- 
nicable perfection of the divine nature, must 
be embraced to render the image complete ; 
wherefore, we conclude, that, as man was 
created in the divine image, he received from 
the plastic hand that formed him, the stamp of 
every communicable perfection of the divine 
nature : nor is holiness the least prominent 
among these perfections, as God has revealed 
himself in the Bible. But this view of the 
subject does not depend upon abstract spec- 
ulations upon the perfections of God, for it 
is based on the declarations of his word. 
Eph. iv. 24 : " And that ye put on the new 
man which, after God, is created in righte- 
ousness and true holiness." By the new 
man, which we are here exhorted to put on, 
we understand the true Christian character. 
This, the text imforms us, is created after 
God, i. e., after the likeness or image of God, 
and this is " in riG:hteousness and true holi- 



was created in his image, he must have been 
holy ; not merely free from unholiness, but 
positively holy ; for he shone in the divine 
image, v/hich consists in righteousness and 
true holines§. 

III. We infer man's primitive holiness 
from the seal of the divine approbation 
which was set upon him by his Maker. 
Gen, i. 31 : " And God saw every thing that 
he had made, and behold it was very good." 
As this was spoken of all the works of God, 
its meaning must be, that every thing was 
very good of its kind ; the world was a 
good Avorld, and the man that was created 
to people it, was a good man. Now as 
man was a rational being, a moral agent, 
and destined to lead the moral career of 
this vast world, when God pronounced him 
good, it must have been with reference to 
him, such as he was, a moral being ; he 
must, therefore, have been good in a moral 
sense. This clearly proves that man was 
not only free from all moral evil, but , that 
he was positively good, or jDosssssed real 
moral virtue. If, as some now ascert, all 
moral good and moral evil consist in volun- 
tary action, man being neither holy nor un- 
holy, until he puts forth his volitions, the 
text under consideration, which asserts, that 
he was very good, cannot be true ; for, in 
such case, it would be as correct to assert 
that he was very bad, as it would to pro- 
nounce him good. It must be perfectly 
plain, that, to assert that man was very 
good, because he was free from all moral 
evil, would be no more true, than it would 
be to declare that he was very bad, because 
he possessed no moral holiness. 

IV. One quotation from the pen of in- 
spiration, shall close the subject of man's 
primitive holiness. 

Eccl. vii. 29. " Lo this only have I found, 
that God hath made man upright, but they 
have sought out many inventions." That 
this text relates to man's moral rectitude, 
and not to the erect posture of his body, ap- 
pears from two considerations. 



108 



THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 



[book II. 



1. This is tlie sense in wliicli the word 
upright is uniformly employed in the Scrip- 
tures. Ps. vii. 10 : "My defense is of God, 
which savelli the upright in heart." Prov. 
xi. 6 : " The righteousness of the upright 
shall deliver him." See also, Ps. xi. 7 ; xviii. 
23. 25 ; xix. 13 ; xxxvii. 37. Prov. xi. 20 ; 
xii. 6. The above, to which many more 
references might be added, are sufficient to 
show that the term upright, is uniformly 
used to signify moral rectitude. 

2. In the text under consideration, the in- 
spired writer represents his discovery of the 
fact, that God made man upright, to be the 
fruit of labored investigation : which could 
not be the case if he alluded to the upright 
posture of his body. It would reflect no 
great honor on the intellect of the inspired 
penman, to understand him as saying, that 
he had numbered a thousand persons, one 
by one, examining each, to learn that God 
had created man to stand erect in opposi- 
tion to the quadruped race. It is clear 
then, that God made man upright in a moral 
sense, and if so, he must have been free 
from moral evil, on one hand, and possessed 
positive moral virtue, on the other. With 
these very brief remarks on man's moral 
character, as he came from the hand of his 
Creator, we will proceed to notice his ex- 
emption from death, while he remained free 
from moral evil. 



SECTION II. 

Man was not liable to Natural Death, 
his Pristine State. 

This question is of great importance ; its 
consequences must have an important bear- 
ing upon other points, yet to be discussed. 

1. If the death of the body be in conse- 
quence of sin, it must follow, that the 
consequences of sin are not confined to this 
world, for, in such case, it cannot be denied 
that the separation of the soul from the 
body, must effect it in a future state. 

2. As the resurrection of the body de- 



God, and not upon some germinating prin- 
ciple in man's body, it follows, that if sin 
has caused the death of the body, it has 
produced an efiecf which is in its own na- 
ture endless, and which would prove an 
endless evil, were it not counteracted by the 
power and grace of God, manifested through 
Jesus Christ. We will then attempt to 
prove that man would not have died, if he 
had not sinned. 

I. The first annunciation of man's mor- 
tality, was in the form of a sentence, inflicted 
on him for his first disobedience. Gen. iii. 
17-19. "And unto Adam he said, be- 
cause thou hast hearkened unto the voice of 
thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which 
I commanded thee, saying, thou shalt not 
eat of it, — in the sweat of thy face, shalt 
thou eat bread, till thou return unto the 
ground, for out of it wast thou taken, for 
dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou re- 
turn." Let it be noted that God first 
threatened man with death in case he should 
disobey, and then, after he had disobeyed, 
he announced his mortality as the fulfill- 
ment of his threatening : " because thou 
hast eaten" — " dust thou art and unto 
dust shalt thou return." God charges on 
man his mortality as the consequence of his 
own disobedience ; hence, if man had not 
sinned he would not have died. 

II. The manner in which God executed 
the above sentence of death, proves that tho 
death of the body was intended, and, as all 
must see, that it was in consequence of sin. 
The sentence of death was executed by ex- 
pelling the offender from the garden of Eden, 
and thereby cutting off his access to the 
tree of life, which stood in the midst of the 
blooming circle. Gen. iii. 22, 23 : " And 
the Lord God said, behold the man has be- 
come one of us to know good and evil ; 
and now, lest he put forth his hand and take 
also of the tree of life, and eat, and live 
forever, therefore the Lord God sent him 
forth from the garden of Eden." It is clear, 
then, that if man had not sinned, by par- 
taking of the forbidden fruit, he would not 



pends upon the sovereign will and power of I have been expelled from the garden, and cut 



CHAP. ly.] 



THE ORIGmAL STATE OP MAN. 



109 



off from the tree of life ; and if he had not 
been cut off from the tree of life, he would 
have lived forever, or would not have died ; 
therefore, if man had not sinned, he would 
not have died. 

III. The suffering, which is an insepara- 
ble accompaniment of death, proves it to be 
an effect of sin. With our present views of 
the divine goodness, we cannot suppose that 
God would permit a race of sinless beings 
to suffer. If it be consistent with the good- 
ness of God to permit sinless beings to suf 
fer, his goodness can give no security against 
the endless suffering of sinners. 

I say then, sin is the cause of all suffer- 
ing, directly or indirectly, but death is in- 
separably connected with suffering ; there- 
fore, sin must be the cause of death, and if 
man had not sinned, he would not have died. 

IV. The resurrection of the body is a 
part of salvation, which is the gift of God 
through Jesus Christ ; and hence, the death 
of the body, which renders such a salvation 
necessary, must be a part of the evil of sin, 
and the curse of the law, from which Christ 
has redeemed us. 2 Tim. i. 10 : " Who hath 
abolished death, and brought life and immor- 
tality to light through the Gospel." 1 Cor. 
XV. 12, 13,' 20, 21: "Now if Christ be 
preached that he rose from the dead, how- 
say some among you that there is no resur- 
rection of the dead. But if there be no 
resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not 
risen. But now is Christ risen from the 
dead, and become the first fruits of them that 
slept ; for since by man came death, by man 
came also the resurrection of the dead." 
These quotations clearly show that the res- 
urrection of the dead is the result of Christ's 
death and resurrection, overthrowing there- 
by the empire of death, and bearing aw-ay 
the spoils of the grave. Indeed, if death is 
not a part of the penalty of the law, and 
consequently an effect of sin, we think no 
good reason can be given why the death of 
Christ was necessary, in order to our re- 
demption. If the law did not inflict death, 
as its penalty for sin, it would not have been 
necessary for Christ to die, to redeem us 



from the curse of the law; for if the law did 
not inflict death on the sinner, and yet re- 
quired the death of Christ in order to his 
redemption, it inflicted on Clirist, what it 
would not have inflicted on the sinner, as a 
reward of his transgression, had there been 
no Redeemer provided. It is clear then, that 
as the resurrection of the body has been se- 
cured by the death and resurrection of 
Christ, that the death of the body, which 
renders such a resurrection necessary, must 
have been caused by the fall, or must be a 
part of the evil of sin. To deny this con- 
clusion, would be to say that the mission, 
death, and resurrection of Christ would have 
been necessary to secure the resurrection of 
the dead, had not man sinned ; and conse- 
quently, that Christ died and rose again, 
not so much to redeem man from the conse- 
quences of his own misconduct, as from the 
defects of that constitution which was given 
him by his Creator. 

Y. Death is said to be an enemy. 1 
Cor. XV. 26 : " The last enemy that shall be 
destroyed is death." Now if death was 
originally intended as the portion of every 
man, and that too of necessity, from the 
constitution of our nature, it is not possible 
to conceive how it can be an enemy, either 
of God or man. It would be absurd to say 
that God created man subject to death, with 
an intention that he should die, and that 
death, which is just as God designed it should 
be, is, notwithstanding, his enemy. As well 
might it be said that God is his own enemy ! 
Nor can it appear on the above principles, 
that death is the enemy of man. Had death 
been originally designed as the means of 
terminating our earthly existence, and in- 
troducing us into a more perfect and per- 
manent state of being, a state of certain 
and eternal happiness, there would not be 
that abhorrence of death in the human 
breast that now exists ; death would be wel- 
comed by all, as our deliverer, sent to take 
us to our abiding home, and dying would 
be as easy as to answer any other demand of 
nature. 

When nature is weary, we calmly close 



no 



THE FALL OF MAN. 



[book II' 



our eyes on the liglit of clay, and sink into 
refreshing slumber ; and if man had been 
designed for death, when natm^e had perform- 
ed her work, we should as calmly close our 
eyes on the light of time, and retire on the 
wings of an expiring breath to our proper 
abode. 



SECTION III. 

Objections to the Doctrine of Mail's Exemp- 
tion from death, Answered. 

1. It has sometimes been objected that if 
man had been created immortal, he could 
never have become mortal, as matter of fact 
now proves he is ; since immortallity im- 
plies impossibility of becoming mortal. To 
this it is replied, that it is not contended 
that man was created absolutely immortal. 
It is admitted that his body contained the 
same tendency to dissolution that it now 
possesses, in itself considered ; but it is con- 
tended, at the same time, that the fruit of 
the tree of life would have counteracted this 
tendency, and preserved him in ever-during 
vigor, had he not been cut off from it in con- 
sequence of his sin. From this it will be 
seen, that man's original exemption from 
death, is not argued from his absolute im- 
mortality, nor is it contended that death is 
the natural tendency of sin, but rather that 
it is an incidental or circumstantial cff-^ct ol" 
sin. Through sin man was expelled from 
the garden of Eden, and thereby cut off from 
the tree of life, and as this was designed to 
preserve him in being, his death foliov/ed as 
a consequence of the change sin had effected 
in his circumstances, rather than by any di- 
rect effect it had produced upon his constitu- 
tion. 

2. It has also been objected, that if man 
did not die, our race could not exist in so 
great a number of individual beings, since 
the earth w^ould be too small to contain the 
swelling tribes of men, were it not that 
death removes one generation to make room 
for another. This, it is said, would dimin- 
ish the amount of final good to be enjoyed 



by our race, in proportion as it lessoned the 
number of individuals to enjoy good. To 
this, it is replied, that we are not to sup- 
pose that this earth was designed as the 
place of man's ultimate abode, had death 
never entered the world; but only as the 
nursery of his being, in which to prepare to 
act in a more extended sphere beyond the 
limits of this terraqueous ball. Matt, xxv., 
34 : " Come ye blessed of my father, inherit 
the kingdom prepared for you from the 
foundation of the world.'' From this, it is 
clear that heaven, or a future state of bliss 
and glory, was prepared for man, as early 
as when the foundation of the world was 
laid ; therefore, it is certain that man was 
designed to fill a place in the invisible world, 
from which it appears reasonable that he 
would have been duly translated from earth 
to heaven, had he never sinned, without 
passing through the disagreeable, loathsome, 
and painful gate of death, through which he 
now passes into the future world. That 
this is possible, and more than probable, ap- 
pears from the fact that some of the most 
holy have gone in this way from earth, 
overlooking the gate of death, and at the 
beck of God, lit directly on the battlements 
of heaven. Enoch, who walked with God, 
was translated, that he should not see death, 
and was not found because God had trans- 
lated him : and Elijah rode to heaven in a 
chariot of fire, which rose far above the val- 
ley of death, and bore the ascending prophet 
directly into the bosom of heaven ! 



CHAPTER y. 

THE FALL OF jrAN — DEPRAVITY. 

A large class of erroists, deny that man is 
now dopraved, or that he is the subject of 
inherent corruption of nature, as the conse- 
quence of a first transgression, committed 
by the progenitor of the human family. 
They maintain that every man enters upon 
the staffe of this life, in moral circumstances i 



CHAP. Y.] 



THE FALL OF MAN". 



Ill 



as favorable as those whicli attended tlie 
first man, with the exception of the influence 
of bad examples. This view is believed to 
be erroneous, and to its refutation the pr 
ent chapter is devoted. Two points are to 
be noticed, namely, the fall of the first man, 
and the consequent depravity of all men, 

SECTION I. 

The Fall of Adam. 

In support of the doctrine of the fall, we 
urge the Mosaic account of the introduction 
of evil. This account states that God cre- 
ated man very good, and placed him in a 
garden in Eden,in the midst of which stood the 
tree of knowledge, of good and evil, the fruit 
of which Grod forbade him to take, on pain 
of death ; and that the Avoman was beguiled 
by the serpent, partook of the interdicted 
fruit, and gave also to the man, who was, 
consequently, involved with her in the trans- 
gression. This account, if literally inter- 
preted, must be decisive ; hence, those who 
reject the doctrine of the fall, as generally 
understood by the church, allegorise the 
Mosaic account of it. To show that a lite- 
ral construction only, can be made to agree 
with the sacred record, shall now be made 
the object of a few remarks. 

I, The Mosaic account of the fall, is em- 
braced in a series of historical events, all of 
which, this excepted, are acknowledged to 
be literal, involving literal and real transac- 
tions. The planting of the garden in Eden, 
stands connected with the creation of the 
world, and the formation of man, in a man- 
ner which shows that the one is as literal as 
the other ; hence, if we have a literal ac- 
count of the creation of a literal heaven and 
earth, we have also an account of a literal 
garden, in which the transaction of the fall 
took place. Gen. ii. 7, 8 : " And the Lord 
God formed man of the dust of the ground, 
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of 
life, and man became a living soul. And 
the Lord God planted a garden eastward in 
Eden, and there he put the man whom he 



had formed." Here the planting of the gar- 
den is connected with the formation of man 
out of the dust of the ground, with a posi- 
tive assertion, that in this garden, the Lord 
" put the man wdiom he had formed." Now, 
if the garden was not a literal and real one, 
the man, whose existence is so intimately 
connected w;ith it, and who was put in it, 
could not have been a literal man. If the 
account of the garden be an allegory, the 
account of the man who was formed in con- 
nection with it, and put into it, must be an 
alllegory also. Hence, we are constrained 
to admit that the garden was a literal gar- 
den, or else, that we are, to this day, desti- 
tute of any literal account of the origin of 
the human family. Again, the sacred his- 
torian proceeds directly from the scenes of 
ih<d garden, to record literal transactions 
which are made to depend thereon, so far as 
the order of time in which these different 
events took place, is concerned. The wri- 
ter, after concluding the story of man's ex- 
pulsion from the garden, proceeds directly 
to relate literal transactions, which he con- 
nects therewith, by the copulative conjunc- 
tion, making it a part of the same narration. 
The creation of man and the birth of Cain 
and Abel, are acknowledged by all believers 
in revelation, to be literal events ; now, 
these two events are connected with each 
other, by the intervening transactions of the 
garden, which must also be literal transac- 
tions, or the history would be broken and 
incorrect. The inspired penman separates 
the creation of man from the birth of Cain 
and Abel, by what is said to have trans- 
pired in the garden, the eating of the forbid- 
den fruijt. Now, if the transactions said 
to have taken place in the garden, were not 
literal and real, the link is broken, and the 
account of the order of events is false ; for 
it represents the creation of man as severed 
from the birth of the first sons of man, by 
the intervention of a train of other events ; 
whereas, no such events took place, if the 
account of the garden and its. reputed 
scenes are a mere allegory. These consid- 
erations are sufficient to show that the ac- 



112 



THE FALL OF MAN. 



[book ii. 



count of the transgi'ession and fall of the 
first man is literal and real. 

II. The garden of Eden, with the events 
which are said to have transpired therein, 
are referred to in other portions of the Holy 
Scriptures, as involving literal facts. 

Gen. iv. 16 : " And Cain went out from 
the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the 
land of Nod, on the east of Eden." That 
this is a literal reference to Eden, cannot be 
doubted by any one, who considers the con- 
nection in which it stands. Abel was a 
keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of 
the gTound : Cain brought of the fruit of 
the grpuud an offering unto the Lord, and 
Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock : 
God had respect unto Abel's offering, but 
not unto Cain's, in consequence of which 
Cain was wroth and slew his brother ; for 
which he was banished, and went to the 
land of Nod on the east of Eden. Here 
reference is made to the geographical 
l^oundaries of Eden, to describe the settle- 
ment of Cain. Now, can any one suppose 
that the Holy Ghost dictated a reference 
to a place which had no real existence, to 
describe the local situation of another place 
real in existence, from their geographical 
affinity ; and yet, to such a consequence 
are we driven, if we deny the literality of 
the Mosaic account of the fall. If Eden 
was not a literal place, where was the land of 
Nod situated, which lay on the east of it ? 

Gen. xiii. 10 : " And Lot lifted up his 
eyes and beheld all the plain of Jordan, 
that it was well watered everywhere, even 
as the garden of the Lord, like the land of 
Egypt." In this text the plain of Jordan 
is described by being compared to the gar- 
den of* the Lord, by which Eden is doubt- 
less meant. Eden was watered by four 
rivers to which reference is made, to de- 
scribe the well watered plain of Jordan. 
Now, if Eden was not a literal garden, then 
the plain of Jordan is described by being 
compared to a place that never existed. 
That Eden is here referred to as a literal 
place, and not as a mere description given 
of it, as an ideal garden, is evident from its 



being connected with Egypt, which must 
be acknowledged to be literally a place. 
" As the garden of the Lord like the land 
of Egypt." The meaning appears to be 
this : As the garden of Eden was watered 
by four rivers, and as the land of Egypt 
was watered by the flowing of the Nile, so 
the plain of Jordan was well watered 

Isa. li. 3 : " For the Lord shall comfort 
Zion : He will comfort all her waste places, 
he will make her wilderness like Eden, and 
her desert like the garden of the Lord." 
Here the garden of the Lord or Eden is re- 
ferred to, for the purpose of describing the 
prosperity of the church, when the moral 
wastes shall be made glad by the tidings of 
salvation, and when her borders shall be en- 
larged by the conversion of the Gentiles to 
God. As the garden of Eden presented an 
assemblage of nature's excellencies, ever 
clad in a verdant and flowery mantle, 
strewing her delightsome walks and pleas- 
ant shades with flowers and fruits ; so shall 
Zion bloom wdth moral flowers, and shed 
her fragrance on the world, when her light 
shall come and the glory of the Lord shall 
rise upon her. But who does not see, that 
in order to sustain the Prophet's figure, 
Eden must have a real and literal existence ? 
If Eden has only an allegorical existence, 
and God made Zion like Eden, then, the 
latter day glory of Christianity, which has 
been predicted by prophets, looked for by 
saints, and prayed for by all the faithful, 
vanishes into an allegory, and ends in a 
mere phantom, that will at last elude the 
grasp, and disappoint the hopes of the long 
expecting church. There are other texts 
which speak of the garden of Eden, that 
might be noticed. Ezekiel xxviii. 13 : 
'■' Eden the garden of God." Chap, xxxvi. 
35 : " And they shall say, this land, that was 
desolate, is become like the garden of 
Eden." Joel ii. 3 : '• The land is as the 
garden of Eden." These references to the 
garden of Eden, by inspired authors, clearly 
show that the garden described by Moses, 
as the first abode of man, had a literal and 
real existence. 



CHAP, v.] 



THE FALL OF MAN. 



113 



But the Scriptures not only contain re- 
ferences to the garden of Eden, but direct 
reference is made to the scenes said to have 
transpired therein. 

Job xxxi. 33 : " If I covered my transgress- 
ions as Adam." Job, no doubt, here re- 
fers to Adam's attempt to hide himself 
among the trees of the garden as described 
Gen. iii. 8 : " And they heard the voice of 
the Lord God walking in the garden in the 
cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid 
themselves from the presence of the Lord 
God, amongst the trees of the garden." 
Now who does not see that the account of 
Adam's sin, and attempt to hide himself, 
must be a narration of literal facts, in order 
to justify such allusions to them. 

On the above text, Dr. Clarke has the 
following note : " Here is a most evident 
allusion to the fall : Adam transgressed 
the commandment of his Maker, and he en 
deavored to conceal it ; first by hiding him 
self among the trees of the garden ; sec 
ondly, by laying the blame on his wife." 

2 Cor. xi. 3 : " But I fear, lest by any 
means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through 
his subtlety, so your minds should be cor- 
rupted from the simplicity of Christ 
Here the seduction of Eve is directly refer- 
red to by an inspired Apostle, in the use of 
the same terms employed in the original 
account. Eve said, " the serpent beguiled 
me ;" and Paul says, " the serpent beguiled 
Eve," referring to it as a literal fact 
Again, it is said that " the serpent was 
more subtle than any beast of the field ;' 
while Paul declares that it was through his 
subtlety that he beguiled the woman 
From this, it must be clear that the Apos- 
tle understood the account of the first trans- 
gression as a literal history ; and it is not 
possible for us to conceive how any one can 
think otherwise, who has any confidence in 
his inspiration. 

1 Tim. ii. 14 : " And Adam was not de- 
ceived, but the woman being deceived, was 
in the transgression." The Apostle is here 
speaking of the subjection of the woman to 
the man. *' I suffer not a woman to teach 



nor to usurp authority over the man." For 
the subjection of the woman, the Apostle 
assigns two reasons. The first is, the man 
was first formed. The second reason is 
contained in the text under consideration. 
" Adam was not deceived, but the woman 
being deceived, was in transgression." This 
plain reference to the deception of the wo- 
man, and that too, in proof of an important 
principle, involved in the matrimonial rela- 
tion, must clearly show, beyond all doubt, 
that the account of the fall of man is literal 
and real. If the account of the fall be a 
mere allegory, and the deception of the wo- 
man, consequently, be not a literal fact, it 
could furnish no argument in support of 
the authority of the man, over the woman. 
Indeed, to say that wives should be in sub- 
jection to their husbands, because " the wo- 
man being deceived, was in the transgress- 
ion," while, in fact, no such deception and 
transgression ever took place, the whole 
being a mere allegory, is too futile to charge 
upon such a master of logic as the Apostle 
Paul. Such an imputation, to an inspired 
Apostle, would not only be trifling, but pro- 
fane. When the Apostle asserted that 
wives should be in subjection to their hus- 
bands, because " the woman, being de- 
ceived, was in the transgression," had some 
grave XJniversalist matron objected to his 
conclusions, saying that the story of Eve's 
deception and transgression, was a mere 
allegory, without any foundation in literal 
fact, he certainly would have been con- 
founded, unless he contended for a literal 
interpretation of this portion of the Mosaic 
history. 

SECTION II. 

Objections to a Literal Construction of the 
Account of the Fall, Answered. 

The only clearly stated denial of the lit- 
erality of the account of the Garden of 
Eden, and of the scenes said to have trans- 
pired therein, which has fallen under the ob- 
servation of the writer, is from the pen of 
the Bev. Hosea Ballou, a distinguished Urn- 



114 



THE FALL OF MAN. 



[book II. 



versalist minister. After giving a summa 
ry statement of the Scriptural account, he 
adds : 

" This is, in short, the Scriptural repre 
sentation of the first sin, and I consider it 
to be figurative. Should it be said that this 
garden was a literal garden, that the tree 
of life was a literal tree, and that the tree 
of knowledge of good and evil was also lit- 
eral, I should be glad to be informed what 
evidence can be adduced in support of such 
an idea. Where is the garden now ? Wh( 
is the tree of life now ? Where is the tree 
of knowledge, of good and evil, now ? Are 
these trees now growing on the earth as lit- 
eral trees ? We are not informed in the 
Scripture, that this garden was carried off to 
heaven, or that either of the trees was re- 
moved. It is written, that God drove the 
man whom he had made out of the garden, 
and placed cherubims and a flaming sword 
at the east of the garden, to prevent the man 
from approaching the tree of life. If the 
garden were literal, why could not Adam 
have gone into it on the north, south, or west 
side?" Treatise on Atonement, page 35. 

-Mr. B. appears to argue, in this case, al- 
together, by asking questions ; but it should 
be recollected, that if no answer could be 
given to the above interrogations, they would 
not disprove the existence of a literal gar- 
den, since a mere want of information on 
any subject, cannot prove its falsity, or non- 
existence. 

1. Mr. B. appears to object to a literal 
exposition of the subject, on the ground that 
there is no evidence to support it. He says, 
" I should be glad to be informed what evi- 
dence can be adduced in support of such an 
idea." In answer to this, it may be said, if 
no other evidence could be adduced, the text 
itself is sufficient, until some evidence be 
offered to prove it to be figurative ; since 
every document is to be literally interpreted, 
unless good reasons can be rendered for a 
different construction. Taking this view, 
Mr. B.'s call for evidence in favor of a lite- 
ral construction, comes with a very ill grace, 
until some more coirent reasons shall be of 



fered on the opposite side of the question, 
than any thing we have been able to discov- 
er, in his performance on the subject. 

But the evidence in favor of a literal con- 
struction is ample, as must appear from the 
preceding arguments. 

2. Mr. B. appears to found an objection 
to a literal interpretation of the subject, on 
the circumstances, that neither the garden 
nor the trees are now known to exist on 
earth. He asks : " Where is the garden 
now? Where is the tree of life now? 
Where is the tree of knowledge now ? Are 
these trees now growing on the earth as lit- 
eral trees ?" That the garden now exists, 
no one will pretend, but this is very far from 
proving that it never did exist. It is per- 
fectly consistent to suppose, that when man 
was expelled from the garden, and the 
ground cursed for his sake, that it should 
decay and cease to bloom. If Mr. B.'s 
mode of reasoning be sound, it will disprove 
many other portions of the sacred history, 
for it would probably cost as much labor to 
prove where the Land of Nod was, to which 
Cain retired, and where he built the city of 
Enoch, as it would to demonstrate the ex- 
act locality of the Garden of Eden. 

3. Mr. B. supposes that if it had been a 
literal garden, from which Adam was ex- 
pelled, he might have re-entered at another 
point. His language is : " It is written that 
God drove the man out of the garden, and 
placed cherubims and a flaming sword at the 
east of the garden, to prevent the man from 
approaching the tree of life. If the garden 
were literal, why could not Adam have gone 
into it on the north, south, or west side ?"' 
To this a very plain answer is given, in the 
language of inspiration. Gen. iii. 23, 24 : 
" The Lord God placed at the east of the 
garden of Eden, cherubims and a flaming 
sword, which turned every way, to keep the 
way of the tree of life." If then the fla- 
ming sword turned every way, to guard the 
tree of life, it must have cut off Adam's 
approach from every point. But it may 
be asked, why the cherubims and flaming 
sword were placed at the east of the gar- 



CHAP, v.] 



THE FALL OF MAN. 



115 



den, if they were intended to guard it on all 
sides ? The answer is, because it was doubt- 
less on the east that Adam retired, v/hen 
God drove him out of the garden ; but while 
the flaming sword was placed at the east, 
appearing in front of the garden, to guilty 
and retiring man, it turned every way to 
prevent his re-entering from another direc- 
tion. On the subject of the cherubims. Dr. 
Clarke has made the following remark : 
" These angelic beings were, for a time, em- 
ployed in guarding the entrance to paradise, 
and in keeping the way or road to the tree 
of life. This I say, for a time, for it is very 
probable that God soon removed the tree of 
life, and abolished the garden ; so that its 
situation could never after be positively as- 
certained." 



SE CTION III. 

All men are Depraved in consequence of 
the Fall. 

I. The universal corruption of human 
nature, follows as a consequence of the fall 
and corruption of the first man, from whom 
all men have received their being by natural 
generation. 

It was proved in the preceding chapter, 
that the first man w^as created in righteous- 
ness and true holiness, that he bore the im- 
press of the hand that made him, and shone 
in the likeness of the divine author. Now, 
as righteousness and true holiness constitu- 
ted the moral character or nature of man, 
as he came from the hand of his Creator, 
it must follow, that this divine image was 
designed for his descendants, and would have 
been communicated to them, had he not 
sinned and lost it himself, while all men 
were yet in his loins. If then, the image of 
God, wherein the first man was created, was 
designed to have been transmitted to his 
ofispring, it must appear reasonable, that 
nothing short of a full possession of this 
image, can answer the claims of the law of 
our creation ; for it would be absurd, to say 
that God created man in a higher state of 



moral perfection than is necessary, to an- 
swer the claims, and secure the glory of the 
moral government which he exercises over 
the human family ; or, that he bestowed on 
man a degree of moral holiness, which he 
did not secure from desecration by the direct 
interposition of moral obligation, or which' 
might be squandered and lost on the part 
of man, without incurring moral guilt. It 
is clear, from this, that any state of human 
nature which comes short of that moral 
perfection, or that divine image which God 
bestowed, when he created man, must be re- 
garded as a lapsed state, coming short of 
that righteousness which the perfect law of 
our Creator requires ; and, consequently, a' 
sinful state, '' for all unrighteousness is sin."' 
If, then, a want of the image of God, which' 
consists in righteousness and true holiness/ 
constitutes a fallen state, it only remains to 
show farther, that man does not, by nature 
now possess this divine image. Now, when 
Adam sinned, he must have lost the image 
of his Maker ; for it would be absurd to 
suppose that the image of God, consisting 
in righteousness and true holiness, could be 
possessed by man, and he be a sinner at the 
same time, guilty before God, and a subject 
of divine punishment. As well might it be 
said, that God could consistently condemn, 
and pour a divine curse upon his own im- 
age ! As well might it be said, that sin and 
holiness once formed a harmonious alliance I 
Adam was not righteous and truly holy, and 
unrighteous, polluted and guilty, at the same 
time. It is certain, then, that Adam could 
not have retained the image of his maker 
after he sinned, and being destitute of it 
himself, he could not communicate it to his' 
offspring ; for no being can communicate to 
another that which he does not himself pos-' 
sess. 

It is clear that the image of God, wherein 
the first man was created, was designed to 
have been transmitted to his descendants, 
and that any want of it, on their part, con- 
stitutes a degenerate state of human nature. 
It is also clear, that this image was lost by 
the first man, to whom it was committed, 



116 



THE FALL OF MAN. 



[book II. 



not only for himself, but also in trust for his 
offspring, and that he therefore could not 
transmit it to his descendants, who conse- 
quently, cannot possess it by nature, or as 
the natural descendants of Adam. Human 
nature, therefore, is degenerate and corrupt, 
coming short of that state of moral perfec- 
tion which it possessed, when it came from 
the holy hands of God, glowing in the 
brightness of his own moral image. 

II. In support of the doctrine of the in- 
herent corruption of human nature, the fact 
that all men are declared to be sinners may 
be urged. 

It will not be denied, that " all have sin- 
ned and come short of the glory of God," 
that " all are under sin," that " all have gone 
out of the way," and that " by the deeds of 
the law, no flesh shall be justified in the 
sight of God." Eom. iii. 9, 12, 20, 23. 
These pointed declarations of divine truth, 
must convince all who have any confidence 
in revelation, that all men commit sin, whe- 
ther they have a corrupt nature or not ; and 
if any should take the trouble to read these 
pages, who reject the Scriptures, for their 
benefit, I make an appeal to the consciousness 
of all men ; and ask, where is the man who 
is not conscious of having, at some time 
deviated from the perfect rule of right? 
We think there is no danger of successful 
contradiction, when we assert, that all men 
sin, and commence sinning too, so soon as 
they are capable of feeling the claims of 
moral obligation, or discerning between good 
and evil. This general overflowing of cor- 
ruption, running through all the channels of 
human society, must have somewhere a cause 
or fountain from whence it emanates. That 
this fountain is the corruption of our nature, 
or the natural bias of the human soul to 
that which is evil, in preference to that 
which is good, is very clear from the fact, 
that it cannot be rationally attributed to 
any other cause. "Why is it that all men 
sin as soon as they are capable ? Those, 
who deny the doctrine of original sin, assert 
that it is the result of bad example, or a 
bad education, or both. Now, as these are 



the only reasons, or, at least, the most plau- 
sible reasons given by our opponents, if the 
ground is shown to be untenable, it will fol- 
low, that we are to look for the fountain, 
from whence this general wickedness pro- 
ceeds, in the corruption of human nature. 
Now, that neither bad example, nor a bad 
education is the cause of the general wicked- 
ness that prevails among men, must appear 
from one consideration. They themselves 
are dependent on a state of general wicked- 
ness for their own existence, as an effect is 
dependent upon the cause that produces it. 

Generally bad example and education can- 
not exist, without a pre-existing state of 
generally corrupt morals ; for until men are 
generally wicked or immoral, example and 
education cannot be generally bad ; hence, 
to say that general wickedness has resulted 
from bad example and education, is to put 
the effect for the cause. The argument must 
stand thus : Men are generally wicked, be- 
cause example and education are generally 
bad, and example and education are gener- 
ally bad, because men are generally wicked. 
This leaves one or the other without a cause, 
for which we must resort to the corruption 
of human nature. If bad example, or bad 
education has produced the general wicked- 
ness of mankind, what first caused general 
bad education and example ? If it be de- 
nied that men are more inclined to evil than 
good, we have here an effect — the general 
corruption of example and education, for 
which there is no assignable cause ; and if 
it be admitted that this general corruption 
of example and education are the result of a 
natural bias in man to evil, the argument is 
ceded, and the doctrine of the corruption of 
human nature is established. 

Other reasons might be rendered, why 
bad example and education cannot have 
produced the general wickedness that has 
prevailed in the earth, but enough has been 
said, on this point, to show, that until the 
opponents of this doctrine can invent some 
more rational cause for the general wicked- 
ness of mankind, than they have yet been 
able to assign, it will remain a standmg 



CHAP, v.] 



THE FALL OF MAN. 



117 



memorial of the corruption of our nature 
through the fall, to the entire overthrow of 
the Pelagian heresy. 

III. Those Scriptures, which represent 
all men as being liable to some sort of divine 
malediction, in consequence of Adam's sin, 
clearly prove the corruption of human na- 
ture through the fall. 

Rom. V. 15 : " For, if through the offence 
of one many be dead, much more the grace 
of God, and the gift by grace, which is by 
one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto 
many." The many, which are said to be 
dead, in this text, embrace the whole human 
family ; for they form a perfect parallel, to 
the many, unto whom the grace of God is 
said to abound by Jesus Christ. All are 
then dead through the offence of one. By 
this one man, through whose offence all are 
dead, we are undoubtedly to understand the 
first man, Adam. Now, if by death, in the 
text, we are to understand the death of the 
body, which has been shown in the preced- 
ing chapter to be an effect of sin, it will fol- 
low that we die in consequence of Adam's 
offence; from which one or two conse- 
quences must follow. First, the law inflicts 
a penalty on those who are perfectly con- 
formed to its divine claims, or else, secondly, 
tl le one offence of Adam corrupted human 
nature, so as to produce in his offspring, a 
non-conformity to the law. Should it be 
said, that men produce in themselves a non 
conformity to the law, by their own pev- 
sonal sin, and that, therefore, the law does 
inflict its penalty on those who are con- 
formed to its claims, in the sentence of death 
upon all men: it is replied, first, that this 
would be to suppose that all men die, tem- 
porally, for their own offence, and not 
" through the offence of one^^ as the text af- 
firms. Secondly, infants die before they are 
capable of producing in themselves, a non- 
conformity to the law. TsTow, to suppose 
that the law inflicts a penalty on such as 
are conformed to its requisitions, would be 
subversive of all righteous government ! 
The thought cannot be indulged for a mo- 
ment. As the law, then, cannot inflict a 



penalty on such as are conformed to its 
claims, and as it does inflict a penalty on all, 
in consequence of Adam's offence, it must fol- 
low, that it produced in all his posterity, a 
non-conformity to the law, which implies a 
lapsed and corrupt state of human nature. 
Should it be denied, that the death of the 
body is intended, in the text, and maintained 
that it is a moral death that is come upon 
all, " through the offence of one," the argu- 
ment is ceded, this being the sentiment for 
which we contend ; therefore, whether tem- 
poral or moral death, or both, be under- 
stood, in the text, the argument remains 
conclusive. In the 16th verse, the Apostle 
says : " And not as it was by one that 
sinned, so is the gift ; for the judgment was 
by one to condemnation." This clearly 
shows, that by the offence of one man, 
Adam, judgment has come upon all, con- 
demning them to death of some sort — " the 
judgment was by one condemnation" — and 
as we have seen, that the law could not con- 
demn or inflict a penalty upon those who 
are conformed to it, the offence of Adam 
must have produced in his offspring a non- 
conformity to the law, or by it judgment 
could not have come upon them, condemn- 
ing them to death, either temporal or moral. 
In the 18th verse, the Apostle expresses 
the same idea, if possible, in clearer lan- 
guage. " By the offense of one, judgment 
came upon all men unto condemnation.'* It 
is settled, then, on the authority of mspira- 
tion, that judgment was passed upon oil 
men, in consequence of the offence of onc^ 
i. e., Adam. All men thus condemned, 
were conformed to the divine law, or they 
were not ; but if they had been conform^ 
to the law, as has been shown, they could 
not have been condemned, therefore they 
were not conformed to the law. There is, 
then, in man, a non-conformity to the law of 
God, which appears from the fact, that all 
men have fallen under its condemnation. 
Now, as condemnation unto death, came 
upon men, before they were guilty of per- 
sonal sin, and does now come upon infants, 
who are incapable of committing sin, it fol- 



118 



THE FALL OF MAN. 



[book II. 



lows that this want of conformity to the law 
of God, is an inherent defect in human na- 
ture, and as it cannot be charged upon the 
Creator, the conclusion is irresistible, that 
. it was caused by the sin of the first man, 
the Father and federal head of the human 
family, by whose offence " judgment came 
upon all men to condemnation." The 19th 
. Terse gives a still more direct view of the 
subject. " By one man's disobedience many 
, were made sinners." It will not be con- 
tended by those who deny the corruption of 
human nature, through the fall, that many 
were made sinners, by a direct imputation 
of Adam's guilt to his offspring. How, 
then, were many made sinners by the offence 
of one ? Tlie only consistent answer to this 
question, is found in the principles already 
laid down : a corrupt state of human nature 
was produced by the sin of the first man, 
and inherited from him, by all men. Is it 
asked how men can be considered sinners, 
merely because they inherit a corrupt na- 
ture by Adam, which tl)ey have not caused, 
and which they cannot prevent ; it is an- 
swered, that this inherited corruption of na- 
ture constitutes a w^ant of conformity to the 
perfect law of God, which requires holiness 
in the inner part, the same " righteousness 
and true holiness" which man possessed 
when he came from the hand of his Crea- 
tor ; and this want of conformity to the law 
is unrighteousness ; a coming short of right, 
and " all unrighteousness is sin." 1 John v. 
17. There is another sense in which it 
may be true that " by the offence of one, 
many were made sinners." " The offence of 
one" corrupted human nature, and this cor- 
ruption of human nature leads to actual 
transgression. There is no other sense in 
which it can be consistently said, that, " by 
the offence of one, many were made sinners." 
If, as some contend, human nature has not 
suffered by the fall, and all depravity con- 
sists in voluntary actions, " the offence of one 
man" cannot have been the cause of the 
sinfulness of many. It would be futile to 
say that the first offence led to the sinful- 
ness of mankind generally, by the influence 



of the example it furnished ; for such was 
the nature of Adam's offence, and such the 
condition in which it placed him and his de- 
scendants, as to preclude the possibility of a 
repetition of the same act. Not only so, 
but what influence can Adam's offence have 
on the morals of men, in producing sin at 
this late period of the world ! Most cer- 
tainly none at all, unless it be by a bias to 
sin which it has produced in human nature. 
If men are now naturally inclined to sin, in 
consequence of a bias, which human nature 
has received through the fall of Adam, it is 
the very thing for which we contend ; but 
if human nature is not thus inclined to evil, 
then 7nani/ cannot have been made sinners 
by the disobedience of one, and the Apostle 
stands corrected by the inventors of new 
doctrines. 

IV. Those Scriptures, which describe the 
unrenewed mind of man, clearly imply his 
native depravity. 

Jer. xvii. 9 : " The heart is deceitful 
above all things and desperately wicked." 

The strength of the argument, drawn 
from this and similar texts, depends upon [ 
what is understood by the term heart. If, I 
by the heart, is meant nothing more than 
the voluntary actions of men, the argument 
would lose much of its force ; but if we un- 
derstand by it the whole moral man, it fol- 
lows that human nature itself is corrupt. 
Now, that by the heart is meant the mind, 
soul, or whole moral man, appears from the 
fact that those attributes and characteristics 
which belong to the soul, are ascribed to 
the heart, as will be seen by the following 
references : — 1 Kings iii. 12 : "A wise and 
understanding heart." Rom. i, 21 : " Fool- 
ish heart." Exo. xxxv. 5 : " Willing heart." 
Psa. ci. 4 : " A froward heart." Matt. xi. 
29 : " Meek and lowly in heart." Pro v. 
xxi. 4 : " A proud heart." Psa. li. 17 : "A 
contrite heart." Exo. vii. 14 : " Hardened 
heart." Rom. ii. 5 : " Impenitent heart." 
Psa. li. 10 : " Clean heart." Isa. xxxv. 
4 : " A fearful heart." Deut. xxviii. 47 : 
" Joyfulness and gladness of heart." Lev. 
xxvi. 16 : " Sorrow of heart." The above 



CHAP. Y.] 



THE FALL OF MAN. 



119 



quotations clearly show that the Scriptures 
do not mean the vohtions of the mind, ex- 
clusively, when they speak of the heart, but 
that the whole mind or soul is intended ; for 
wisdom, understanding, humility, pride, con- 
trition, impenitence, purity, joy, sorrow, 
peace, imply powers, passions and qualities, 
which are not attributable to volition alone, 
or to voluntary actions, but which belong- 
essentially to the mind or soul. By the 
heart, then is meant, not the affections or 
volition only, but the soul or whole moral 
and intellectual man ; or the seat of the 
understanding, will, or volitions, affections 
and passions. Now as the " heart,'' which 
is the seat of the understanding, will, affec- 
tions and passions, is said to be " deceitful 
above all things, and desperately wicked,'' it 
follows that the whole man is depraved, and 
that entire human nature has become cor- 
rupt. 

Gen. vi. 5 : " And God saw that the 
wickedness of man was great in the earth, 
and that every imagination of the thoughts 
of his heart was only evil continually." 

This text clearly makes a distinction be- 
tween the heart and the volitions, or 
thoughts and purposes of the mind ; the 
former is the source or fountain ; the lat- 
ter are the streams proceeding therefrom. 
The expression, "thoughts of his heart," 
marks the thoughts, as not being the heart, 
but as belonging to the heart, or proceed- 
ing therefrom. Now as every imagination 
of the thoughts of the heart is evil, it fol- 
lows that the heart itself must be corrupt. 
Can that heart from whence proceeds evil 
without any mixture of good, and without 
any intermission of the evil, be free from 
evil itself? When the heart can send 
forth that which it does not possess in itself, 
and when an effect can exist without a pro- 
ducing cause, then, and not before, this can 
be true. Should it be still contended that 
the evil has its existence alone in the voli- 
tions of the heart, and that the thoughts 
are evil, not in consequence of the source 
from whence they proceed, but from the 
objects to which they tend ; it is replied, 



that this does not in the least relieve the 
difficulty ; it still leaves us without a rea- 
son why the volitions should all be evil, 
and every thought tend to an evil object. 
Can every volition of the human soul be 
evil, directing every thought towards an 
evil object, without ever once missing the 
mark ; and still, the soul itself contain no 
bias to evil ? As well may we suppose 
that something may exist or take place, 
without an adequate cause ; which, to say 
the least, is very unphilosophical. 

Rom. vii, 18, 19, 20 : " To will is pres- 
ent with me, but how to perform that 
which is good I find not, for the good that 
I would, I do not, but the evil which I 
would not, that I do. Now if I do that 
I would not, it is no more I that do it, but 
sin that dwelleth in me." 

This text clearly teaches that human na- 
ture is corrupt, and that too, beyond the 
will or volitions of the mind. Three things 
are to be particularly noticed. 

1. The Apostle informs us that he could 
will that which was good. This, no doubt, 
was through the help of the Holy Spirit, 
under whose arrest and awakening energies 
his mind was laboring. Now, as to will 
was present, while he did not the good 
that he willed, it follows beyond the possi- 
bility of doubt, that the sinner's depravity 
and helplessness, does not consist exclusively 
in the perverseness of the will. 

2. The Apostle declares that he finds 
not how to perform that which is good, and 
that he does that which he would not. 
This argues that there is in human nature, 
a strong bias to evil, against which the will 
has to contend. If the sinner has a natu- 
ral ability to do all that the perfect law of 
righteousness requires, without supernat- 
ural aid, the perverseness of his will only 
preventing, it is not possible to conceive 
how a man can sin by not doing the good 
which he wills and by doing the evil which 
he would not. 

3. The Apostle explains how he does 
that which he would not, by saying it is 
sin that dwelleth in him, " If I do that I 



120 



THE FALL OF MAN. 



[book n. 



would not, it is no more I tliat do it, but 
sin that dwelleth in me." This clearly 
points out the corruption of human nature. 
The Apostle does evil : " The evil which I 
would not that I do." This clearly points 
out actual sin. But why does he do it ? 
He declares that it is the work of sin that 
dwelleth in him. What ihen is this in- 
dwelling sin ? It cannot be his volitions or 
voluntary actions, for he assigns it as a 
cause why he acts as he does, and it would 
be absurd to make the Apostle say that 
his actions were the cause of his actions ; 
hence, there is in man an indwelling cor- 
ruption v/hich does not consist in action 
and this we say, in the language of the 
creed, " is the corruption of the nature of 
every man, that naturally is engendered of 
the offspring of Adam, whereby man is 
wholly gone from original righteousness, 
and of his own nature inclined to evil, and 
that continually." When the Apostle says 
it is sin that dwelleth in him, he clearly 
uses the term sin, to denote something 
which is not voluntary action. 

Psalms li. 5 : " Behold I was shapen in 
iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive 
me." On this text Dr. Clarke has the fol- 
lowing pointed remark. '' Notwithstand- 
ing all that Grotius and others have said to 
the contrary, I believe David to speak here 
of what is commonly called original sin, 
the propensity to evil which every man 
brings into the world with him ; and Avhicli 
is the fruitful source whence all transgress 
ion proceeds." That this is the true sense 
of the text, is clear from the followin 
more critical remarks, made by Eev. Rich- 
ard Watson. " What possible sense can 
be given to this passage on the hypothesis 
of man's natural innocence ? It is in vain 
to render the first clause, ' I was brought 
forth in iniquity,' for nothing is gained by 
it. David charges nothing upon his moth- 
er, of whom he is not speaking, but of him- 
self ; he Avas conceived, or, if it please bet- 
ter, was born a sinner. And if the render- 
ing of the latter clause were allowed, which 



7iurse me,' still no progress is made in get- 
ting quit of its testimony to the moral cor- 
ruption of children ; for it is the child only 
which is nursed, and if that be allowed, 
natural depravity is allowed ; depravity be- 
fore reasonable choice, which is the point in 
question." 

We may well exclaim, " What possible 
sense can be given to this passage," if no 
reference be had to inherited depravity ? On 
such a supposition, it must stand a mere 
blank in the midst of a most interesting and 
pathetic subject. David is making con- 
fession of his sin, and imploring pardon for 
the same, and while thus confessing his ac- 
tual sins, which he had committed, he adds 
an acknowledgment of his native corrupt- 
ion. " For I acknowledged my transgress- 
ion, and my sin is ever before me ; against 
thee and thee only have I sinned, and done 
this evil in thy sight : Behold I was shapen 
in iniquity, and in sin did my mother con- 
ceive me." Understand the Psalmist in the 
above sense, and the connexion is clear, the 
confession full, and the climax regular and 
>'rand. We understand him as saying, I 
have committed sin ; I have not only sinned, 
but my sin has been of the most daring 
character, it has been committed against 
thee, God, Majesty of heaven! yea, I 
confess more ; I have not only done wick- 
edly, but my very nature is corrupt ; these 
outbreaking sins have been only the streams 
issuing from a fountain of corruption with- 
in, existing in my very nature, which was 
shapen in iniquity, and conceived in sin. 
When my mother conceived me, she con- 
ceived a sinful nature, and when I was 
formed into an organized being, my moral 
shape or likeness, was after the form of in- 
iquity ; i. e., in the image of a fallen spirit, 
and not after the image of God in which 
the first man was created. 

Rom. viii. 7 : " The carnal mind is en- 
mity against God, for it is not subject to 
the law of God, neither indeed can be." 
The whole connection in which this text 
stands, goes to show that by the " carnal 



yet has no authority, ' in sin did my mother | mind," we are to understand the soul of 



CHAP, v.] 



THE FALL OF MAN. 



121 



man in its natural state, unrenewed by the 
quickening grace of God. The Apostle 
here notes the difference between a natural 
state and a renewed state. " To be car- 
nally minded is death, but to be spiritually 
minded is life and peace ; for the carnal 
mind is enmity against God. So then they 
that are in the flesh, cannot please God. But 
ye are not in the flesh, if so be that the 
spirit of God dwell in you." To be carnally 
minded then, is to be destitute of the spirit 
of God, by which he renews and sanctifies 
the soul ; hence, the carnal mind is one un- 
renewed by the spirit of God : not " born 
of the spirit," Now, that this carnal mind 
or state of enmity against God is the nat- 
ural state of the soul, is evident from its 
being opposed to a state of grace and sal- 
vation. The Scriptures speak of a two-fold 
state : our natural state, and a spiritual or 
renewed state. " That which • is born of 
the flesh, is flesh, and that which is born of 
the spirit is spirit." John iii. 6. The first 
state must be our state by nature, the sec- 
ond state is a supernatural, gracious, and 
renewed state. The first state is a fleshly 
state in which we cannot please God ; a 
carnal state, which is enmity against God : 
the second state is a state of reconciliation 
to God, a state of conformity to the divine 
will and likeness. Therefore the carnal 
mind, Vfhich is enmity against God, being 
the natural state of the soul, it follows that 
man is by nature an enemy to God, or pos- 
sesses a natural and inherent want of sub- 
jection or conformity to the divine law, 
which requires holiness in the inner parts. 
The texts above quoted, are to be regarded 
as mere specimens, of the many which, in 
similar language, describe the human soul 
in its natural state, as a fallen spirit, full of 
wickedness, estranged from God, possessing 
unholy affections and passions. 

Y. Those scriptures which speak of the 
necessity, and describe the nature of regen- 
eration, clearly imply the corruption of the 
human soul through the fall. 

John iii. 3. : " Except a man be born 
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 



That this text has reference to a moral 
change for the better, of some sort, we trust 
will not be denied by any ; and that it is the 
change which constitutes the difference be- 
tween a christian and a sinner, in the popu- 
lar sense of these terms, appears from a con- 
sideration of the agent by which the change 
is effected ; the Spirit of God is the agent 
by which sinners are renewed and sanctified ; 
hence, the Apostle says, " he hath saved us 
by the renewing of the Holy Ghost." The 
words of Christ, " born again," exactly cor- 
respond to the words of the Apostle, " re- 
newing of the Holy Ghost," both implying 
the same change. That the necessity of 
such a change, as is implied by being born 
again, arises from the corruption of human 
nature, and not merely from the wickedness 
of human conduct, appears from the reason 
assigned by him, who " knew what was iu 
man," " that which is born of the spirit is 
Spirit, and that which is born of the flesh 
is flesh. Marvel not that I said unto you, 
ye must be born again." Here the natural 
birth, which is of the flesh, and by which 
we are introduced into the world, is opposed 
to the spiritual birth, by which we are in- 
troduced into the kingdom of God or church 
of Christ ; and the necessity of the latter is 
made to depend upon the circumstances of 
the former : we must be " born again," he- 
cause that which "w horn ofthefiesh is flesh" 
to which an Apostle adds, " they that are 
in the flesh cannot please God." From this 
it most unequivocally appears that we in- 
herit something by natural birth, or by nat- 
ural generation which excludes us from the 
kingdom of God, being naturally unfit for 
its possession and enjoyments, and this unfit- 
ness is by birth, and not by subsequent 
wicked conduct. Therefore, moral deprav- 
ity, in its first stage, consists in something 
which we inherit, and not in what we do. 

It is worthy of remark, that the change 
under consideration is termed a renewal, a 
nev) creation ; terms which can have no 
meaning, unless the change is in fact a 
reparation of lapsed human nature. 

Titus iii. 5 : "He hath saved us by the 



122 



THE FALL OF MAN. 



[book ii. 



washing of regeneration, and renewing of 
the Holy Ghost." Ool. iii. 9, 10 : " Yc 
have put off the old man with his deeds, and 
have put on the new man, which is renewed 
in knowledge, after the image of him that 
created him." 2 Cor. v. 17 : "If any man 
be in Christ he is a new creature." Eph. 
ii. 10 : " We are his vrorkmanship, created 
in Christ Jesus." Eph. iv. 24 : " And that 
ye put on the new man which after G-od is 
created in righteousness and true holiness." 
These texts, which are adduced merely as a 
specimen of the many which might be quo- 
ted on the same point, imply a renovation 
of nature as well as of life or conduct, and 
they can have no meaning, unless they im- 
ply a reparation of lapsed human nature ; 
and if they imply this, the doctrine of inhe- 
rent depravity is established. 

YI. The corruption of human nature is 
proved by those scriptures, which teach that 
there is in man remaining depravity, after 
justification or pardon. 

2 Cor. vii. 1 : " Having therefore these 
promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse our- 
selves from all filthiness of the flesh and 
spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." 
On this text it may be remarked, first, that 
it is addressed to christians, as such. Sec- 
ondly, the expression in the text, " let us 
cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the 
flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the 
fear of God," clearly supposes that they 
were not, or that it was possible that as 
christians, they might not have been cleansed 
from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, and 
that they were not as perfect in holiness as 
was their privilege to be ; there may be, 
therefore, remaining in man a degree of 
moral corruption after he is justified by faith, 
or has his sins forgiven. It also follows that 
there is, with man, such a thing as an imper- 
fect state of holiness. 

1 Thes. V. 23 : " And the very God of 
peace sanctify you wholly ; and I pray God 
your whole spirit and soul, and body be 
preserved blameless, unto the coming of our 
Lord Jesus Christ." 

This text supposes that those to whom it 



was addressed, were sanctified in part, and 
not entirely sanctified ; or, at least, it sup- 
poses that sanctification in part without be- 
ing entirely sanctified, is a possible condi- 
tion, for it would be absurd to pray to be 
sanctified ivholly, if there were no such thing 
as being sanctified in part without being 
wholly sanctified. Furthermore, as the 
Thessalonians, to whom the Apostle wrote, 
were, beyond all dispute, believers in Christ 
Jesus, it follows that men are not necessari- 
hj sanctified wholly in spirit, soul and body, 
when they are converted to God ; or when 
they are justified through the forgiveness of 
sin ; hence, there may be a degree of unho- 
lincss remaining in the spirit, soul, and body 
after justification. 

On this point, Mr. Watson has given the 
testimony of his opinion, in the following 
language : " That a distinction exists be- 
tween a regenerate state, and a state of en- 
tire and perfect holiness, will be generally 
allowed. Eegeneration, as we have seen, is 
concomitant with justification ; but the 
Apostles, in addressing the body of believ- 
ers, in the churches to whom they wrote 
their epistles, set before them, both in their 
prayers they offer in their behalf, and in the 
exhortations they administer, a still higher 
degree of deliverance from sin, as well as a 
higher growth of christian virtues." 

Now, this remaining corruption in the 
hearts of believers, after the pardon of sin, 
is totally irreconcilable with the native pu- 
rity or indifference of human nature. When 
God pardons a sinner, he forgives all his 
sins that have been committed in past life ; 
hence, if human nature is not corrupt, and 
if all sin consists in voluntary actions, when 
a sinner is pardoned, there could be no re- 
maining corruption, or pollution, and the 
soul would be just as holy, just as free from 
moral defilement, as it would be if sin had 
never stained the universe. 

YII. The whole gospel economy proceeds 
on the ground of man's natural depravity, 
or corruption of nature. It will not be de- 
nied, that the whole gospel system is founded 
on the mission of Christ, and proceeds to 



CHAP, v.] 



THE FALL OF MAN. 



123 



offer salvation to the human family on the 
ground of what he has done and suffered for 
us. He came to " seek and save that which 
was lost" — he " gave himself a ransom for 
all," and tasted "death for every man." 
That " as by the offence of one," (Adam) 
" judgment came upon all men to condemna- 
tion, even so by the righteousness of one," 
(Jesus Christ) " the free gift came upon all 
men unto justification of life." " Neither 
is there salvation in any other ; for there is 
none other name under heaven, given among 
men, whereby we must be saved ;" for he is 
the " Saviour of all men, especially of those 
that believe." There are two leading truths 
on the very face of the gospel, on the ground 
of which the w^hole gospel system proceeds. 
These truths are the following : First, all 
are lost and stand in need of salvation. 
Secondly, Christ is the Saviour of all, able 
and willing to save all that need, and who 
will come unto him that they may have life. 
These which are fundamental, and draw af- 
ter them every other part of the gospel sys- 
tem, clearly suppose a fallen and corrupt 
state of human nature ; for they can be 
truths only in view of the truth of our in- 
herent depravity. If man is not corrupt in 
nature, and if all sin consists in voluntary 
actions, it is perfectly possible to avoid all 
sin, so as to need no atonement for sin ; no 
restorer, no mediator, no interposition of 
Jesus Christ, to reconcile us to God. It 
would be profane to say that men are un- 
reconciled to God, so as to need a mediator, 
and lost so as to need salvation, in the same 
state in which God created them ; having 
never broken his law nor in any way sinned 
against him : hence, if men are not by na- 
ture corrupt, it is possible to live free from 
all sin, so as not to need the atoning blood to 
wash away our sins, or the HoJy Ghost to 
renew our hearts. This would be subversive 
of the whole gospel system. To such be- 
ings the story of Jesus' sufferings and death 
would be preached in vain ; the invitations 
of the gospel would be heard only as ad- 
dressed to others, and the proffered agency 
of the Holy Ghost would be declined, and 



the mission of Christ and the whole gospel 
system, would prove an unnecessary and an 
uncalled for interference with human allot- 
ment. The following very appropriate re- 
marks, on this point, are from the pen of 
Mr. Fletcher. " In every religion, there is 
a principal truth or error, which, like the 
first link of a chain, necessarily draws after 
it all the parts with which it is essentially 
connected. This leading principle in Christi- 
anity, distinguished from deism, is the doc- 
trine of our corrupt and lost estate : for if 
man is not at variance with his Creator, 
what need of a mediator between God and 
him ? If he is not a depraved, undone crea- 
ture, wdiat necessity of so wonderful a re- 
storer and Saviour as the Son of God ; If 
he is not enslaved to sin, why is he redeemed 
by Jesus Christ ? If he is not polluted, 
why must he be washed in the blood of that 
ijnmaculate Lamb ! If his soul is not disor- 
dered, what occasion is there for such a di- 
vine physician ? If he is not helpless and 
miserable, why is he perpetually invited to 
secure the assistance and consolations of the 
Holy Spirit ? And in a word, if he is not 
born in sin why is a new birth so absolutely 
necessary, that Christ declares, with the 
most solemn asseverations, without it no 
man can see the kingdom of God ?" 

YIII. In conclusion, on the subject of 
depravity, it is proper to appeal to the ex- 
perience of all the good, who have resolved 
on living conformably to the strict piety and 
pure morals inculcated by our holy religion, 
and ask, if they have not found foes within, 
as well as without ? If their disordered and 
scattered affections, so difficult to control 
and concentrate in the one supreme object, 
God ,• if their unholy passions, so difficult to 
restrain and correct, whicli, at touch kindle 
into forbidden anger, and settle into delib- 
erate and hateful revenge, or melt into com- 
pliance with the most low and debasing in- 
dulgencies, do not teach that the soul to 
which such affections and passions belong, 
is a fallen and corrupt spirit ? This appeal 
may have but little influence with the aban- 
doned, who have never attempted to subdue 



124 



THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II, 



their unholy propensities, who have yielded 
to the current of evil without resistance ; 
but he, who has ever made an attempt at 
the pure religion of the gospel, will feel its 
force. 

While the life of the Christian is a war 
fare, a warfare not with the world and satan 
only, but with the affections and passions 
which are the attributes of his own soul, a 
warfare with the elements of his own nature, 
he will carry with him an ever present evi- 
dence of the corruption of human nature ; 
an evidence that will last until the victory 
is complete, and he finds himself wholly re- 
deemed from the ruins of the fall. 



CHAPTER YI. 

REDEMPTION — CHRISt's DEATH A RANSO.AI 
FOR SINNERS — THE ATONEMENT. 

By the doctrine of the atonement, is meant 
that view of the sufferings and death of 
Christ, which affirms that he suffered and 
died as man's substitute, in a manner to de 
liver sinners from the punishment due to 
their sins, and that the merits of his death 
as their atoning sacrifice, is the only ground 
of their pardon and restoration to holiness 
and happiness. 

In opposition to this view, it is maintain- 
ed by Pelagians and Socinians, and by some 
Unitarians, that Christ is to be regarded in 
the light of a martyr only, and that his suf- 
ferings and death possess no saving virtue, 
beyond the influence of a heroic example. 
The two views are too wide apart, to be 
parts or modifications of the same system, 
and the Gospel is fundamentally a different 
matter, as the one or the other is adopted. 
So important is the difference, as to de- 
mand a thorough investigation of the sub- 
ject. 



SECTION I. 
The Necessity of Atonement. 

The Divine government requires satis- 
faction, in order to the salvation of sin- 
ners. 

I. All men are under law to God. To 
deny this, would be to deny that the world 
is under moral government, for government 
without rule or law, is self-contradictory. 
The law, by which we should be governed, 
is the will of our Creator. When God 
brings any rational being into existence, 
such being must be under obligation to the 
hand that made him, and as every power is 
the work of the Creator, nothing short of 
the employment of the whole, in accordance 
with his will, can satisfy the claims of the 
Creator. Taking this view, we see that no 
rational being can exist, without law to 
God, which law commences with the com- 
mencement of our rational existence, and 
continues through the whole extent of our 
being — while life, and thought, and being, 
last. 

IT. It is undeniable, that all men have vi- 
olated the law of God, and are sinners, " for 
sin is the transgression of the law." For 
ample proof on this fundamental point, 
the reader is referred to the preceding chap- 
ter. 

III. The penalty of God's law is death, 
which is in its own nature endless, so that 
a being having once incurred the penalty, 
can never be saved, except it be by a par- 
don, which remits such penalty. 

1. Death is clearly the penalty of God's 
law. 

Death was the penal sanction of the first 
precept given to man. Gen. ii. 17 : " In 
the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt sure- 
ly die." Ezek. xviii. 20 : " The soul that 
sinneth it shall die." Rom. vi. 23 : " The 
wages of sin is death." Rom. viii. 6 : "To 
be carnally minded is death." James i. 15 : 
Sin, when finished, bringeth forth death." 

2. Death, whether natural, moral, or 
spiritual, must be endless in its own nature. 



CHAP. VI.] 



THE ATONEMENT. 



125 



What is death ? It is the negation of 
life, the absence of that life to which it 
stands opposed. If death is made to con- 
sist in moral depravity, it is tite negation of 
that holiness, that conformity to the divine 
will and likeness, which constitutes moral or 
spiritual life. If death is made to consist 
in the dissolution of the body, it is the ne 
gation of those vital energies which consti- 
tute animal life. When a person dies mor- 
ally or naturally, it is the principle or pow- 
er of the opposite life that is overcome ; life 
becomes extinct, and death reigns. Now 
when a person is dead on this principle, self- 
resuscitation is utterly impossible, life has 
become extinct, and nothing but death reigns 
and pervades the whole system ; hence, death 
left to the tendency of its own nature, must 
hold on to its subjects with an eternal grasp 
unless it be said that death can produce 
life, or that inertia can produce animation ; 
for as there is nothing but death now per- 
vading the once animated sphere of the fal- 
len, the energies of life can move there no 
more forever, unless they can spring from 
death, or out of nothing rise. 

It is certain then, so far as moral or spir- 
itual death is concerned, on which this ar- 
gument is predicated, that persons once 
dead must remain dead forever, unless God, 
who said " thou shalt die," speak to the 
dead, and say, thou shalt live, and thereby 
revoke the sentence of his righteous law. 
We see then, that there is no way of being 
delivered from the penalty of the law but 
by a pardon ; for when the penalty of the 
law takes effect in the death of the sinner, 
as that death is in its own nature endless 
holding the criminal under its dominion, any 
subsequent deliverence by the communica- 
tion of life by God, from whom it must pro- 
ceed, must be regarded in the light of a par- 
don, since, in such a case, the offender does 
not endure all that the sentence imports, 
death being endless of itself. If then, there 
is no salvation but by a pardon, we are led 
to enquire on what ground such pardon is 
to be looked for. 

lY. There can be no pardon extended to 



sinners without an atonement ; without a 
satisfaction to the claims of the divine gov- 
erment. There are but three grounds of 
pardon which can be maintained with any 
degree of plausibility, in view of this argu- 
ment. They are, first, by some provision in 
the law, or, secondly, by the prerogative of 
God, or, thirdly, by an atonement. By pro- 
ving the first two of these grounds of par- 
don to be false, it will be rendered certain, 
that the third is the true and only ground of 
pardon. 

1. The law does not and cannot contain 
a provision for the remission of its own pen- 
alty. This question is settled by St. Paul. 
Gal. iii. 21, 22 : " If there had been a law 
given which could have given life, verily, 
righteousness should have been by the law, 
but the scripture hath concluded all under 
sin, that the promise, by faith of Jesus 
Christ, might be given to them that believe.'' 
In this text, the Apostle asserts, in effect, 
that no law has been given, which can give 
life, hence, the law, which inflicts death, can 
contain no provisions for the removal of 
death, and the restoration of the dead to life ; 
for in such case the law would give life, 
which is the point the Apostle denies. A 
law without any penal sanction, would be 
of no force, and might be violated with im- 
punity ; and a law, making provision for 
delivering offenders from its penalty, w^ould 
be the same, in effect, as a law without any 
penal sanction ; since, in such case, no pen- 
alty would take effect ; therefore, the idea 
of a law making provision for delivering 
offenders from its own penal sanctions, is a 
solecism. 

2. Pardon cannot be extended to sinners 
by the mere prerogative of God. This is 
maintained from the view already taken of 
the perfections of God. Every perfection 
of the divine nature is opposed to it. 

(1.) If God be immutable, what he does 
or sanctions at one time, he must do or 
sanction at all times, under circumstances 
involving the same moral principles. God 
having sanctioned the death of the sinner, 
by making death the penalty of his law, to 



126 



THE ATONEMENT. 



[BOOK II. 



counteract it by interposing a pardon, would 
be to act differently at diflferent times, under 
circumstances which involve the same moral 
principles, which would clearly imply muta- 
bility or change, unless something be urged 
as the ground of the pardon which renders 
the case of the offender a different one from 
what the law contemplates, as is the case, 
on the supposition that Christ has made an 
atonement. Taking this view, it must ap- 
pear, that for God to pardon merely by pre- 
rogative, not only implies his mutability, 
but also involves the divine administration, 
in principles which contradict and oppose 
each other. It makes God say in his law, 
the soul that sinneth it shall die, and at the 
same time, say, by an act of parden, the 
sinner shall not die ; both of which cannot 
be true. 

(2.) Divine justice, on the above princi 
pies, must be violated, either in the penalty 
of death, or else, in the pardon which averts 
the penalty. The law claims the death of 
' the transgressor ; hence, if the law be just, 
justice claims tlie death of the offender ; and 
justice as well as law says, the soul that sin- 
neth, it shall die. , On the otlier hand, if jus- 
tice does not claim the death of the offender, 
the law claims more than justice and must 
be unjust, and, consequently, God must be 
unjust ; for he could not be just in giving 
an unjust law. Now, as justice claims the 
death of the sinner, his deliverance by a par- 
don, founded on mere prerogative, would be 
a violation of justice ; for justice cannot 
claim the death of a sinner and sanction his 
life at the same time, all in view of the same 
moral principles. The conclusion is, that 
if God pardens sinners by mere prerogative, 
he must have been unjust in sanctioning 
his law with the penalty of death, or else, 
in the pardon which sets aside a just 
penalty. 

(3.) If God is all-wise, he must have seen 
it proper for the good of the moral system, 
that transgressors should die, or he would 
never have sanctioned his law with the pen- 
alty of death ; for God could not be wise in 
giving to his law a penalty, the execution of 



which, would be improper and opposed to 
the best interests of his government. Now, 
if perfect wisdom saw that it would be 
proper and for the best interests of the 
moral system, that offenders should die, the 
same perfect wisdom cannot see that it is 
proper and for the best interests of the 
moral system that the same offenders should 
live : It is either proper and for the best in- 
terests of the divine government that sinners 
should die, or it is not : if it is proper and 
for the best, God would be unwise to pardon 
them ; but if it be not proper and for the 
best, that sinners should die, God must have 
been unwise when he gave to his law the sanc- 
tion of death. The conchision is, that if 
God pardons offenders by mere prerogative, 
he must have acted unwisely when he an- 
nexed to his law the penalty of death, or he 
acts unwisely when he prevents the execu- 
tion of such penalty by extending a pardon 
to the offender. 

(4.) The same mode of reasoning may be 
employed in relation to the goodness of God, 
for it must appear obvious to all, that the 
same goodness which would pardon a sinner 
to save him from death, which is the penalty 
of tlie law, would have withheld such a sanc- 
tion from the law ; or to reverse the order, 
that goodness which would annex to the 
law the penalty of death, would not prevent 
its execution, but suffer tlie offender to die. 

Let the statement now be repeated, that a 
pardon can be looked for only, on one of 
three grounds, namely, first, on the ground 
of some provision in the law ; secondly, on 
the ground of the prerogative of God, third- 
ly, on the ground of a satisfaction by a sub- 
stitute, which is the doctrine of the atone- 
ment. As the first two of these grounds 
are proved to be impossible, the third must 
be the true ground, and the conclusion is 
reached, that pardon can be extended to 
sinners only upon the ground of an atone- 
ment, and such atonement must be found, or 
sinners must perish. 

Y. The required atonement cannot have 
been made unless it was made by Jesus Christ. 
If this position can be made clear, the argu- 



CHAP. VI.] 



THE ATONEMENT. 



127 



ment will be conclusive. As it will not be 
contended that an angel, or any other be- 
ing, as man's substitute, has made an 
atonement for him, it is only necessary to 
prove that man cannot make an atonement 
for his own sins, and the world of sinners 
will be compelled to ground their hopes 
upon the death of Christ, or perish for ever. 

1. Man has nothing to present, as an 
atonement, or to render to divine justice as 
a redemption price, on which the law had 
not a previous claim. Were man capable 
of obeying the law, perfectly, from this time 
forward and forever, and should he do it, it 
would not atone for his past sins ; for all 
this the law claims, without any reference 
to his past disobedience, and would have 
claimed, if he had never disobeyed. AVe 
have already seen that the law claims man's 
entire obedience, through the whole period of 
his existence ; but if the sinner should, at 
any time, commence a course of obedience, 
and pursue it forward, in view of his past 
disobedience, he could obey God, only dur- 
ing a part of his existence, and hence, must 
forever come short of answering the claims 
of the divine law. 

2. Man is a fallen and depraved being, 
and is incapable of perfect obedience, until 
he is first redeemed and saved, and of course 
he can make no satisfaction for his past 
disobedience. How entirely absurd it must 
appear, to pretend that a fallen being can 
atone for his past sins, since he must be re- 
deemed and saved from those sins, before 
he can obey, and answer the claims of the 
law for the present. 

But it may be asked, is not repentance 
all the restitution that is required of sin- 
ners ? The answer is, repentance is no res 
titution, and cannot, in the least, be re- 
garded in the light of an atonement. If 
repentance be regarded, as it is by those 
who deny the doctrine of atonement, as a 
mere reformation from open vice, it would 
appear a singular atonement indeed. It 
amounts to this, in principle : I have of 
fended against a good law ; now how shall 
I escape punishment? I will satisfy the 



claims of the law by an atonement. But 
what shall I render as a satisfaction ? If I 
can be excused, I will leave off committing 
the offence. Such notions of atonement are 
too lax to deserve further notice. But 
should repentance be viewed as a work of 
the heart, under the exercise of a godly 
sorrow for sin, producing confession of sin, 
and reformation in life, it will still come 
short of being an atonement, for the follow- 
ing reasons : 

1. Eepentance is a work, or an exercise 
which cannot exist without the previous 
existence of sin, and can be exercised by 
none but sinners. Now, that which is de- 
pendent upon sin for its very existence, the 
necessity and existence of which is laid in 
sin, cannot be an atonement for sin. 
Again, as repentance is an exercise of 
the heart and soul, under a sense of guilt 
and exposure, producing a heartfelt sorrow 
for sin, it cannot constitute an atonement 
for sin ; for the law had a previous claim 
on the entire heart, requiring the exercise 
of all its powers, not in repentance, but in 
the more noble work of loving the Creator. 
" Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and 
with all thy mind, and with all thy might." 
It has already been noticed, that in order 
to an atonement, something must be en- 
gaged on v/hich the law had not a previous 
claim, which is not the case in the work of 
repentance. 

2. Eepentance is not only insufficient in 
itself, but in view of the fallen state of man, 
it cannot be exercised without the gracious 
influence of the Holy Spirit, which supposes 
a state of grace previous to repentance ; 
hence, the atonement must be made before 
repentance can take place, and that which 
can exist only subsequently to an atone- 
ment, cannot be the atonement itself. We 
see then, that man cannot make an atone- 
ment for sin, nor give a ransom for his soul. 

At this point the argument comes to a 
natural and successful close. It is agreed 
by all who claim the name of Christian, 
[that God does save sinners by restoring 



128 



THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



them to holiness and happiness. This he 
does, by or without atonement. But it has 
been proved. 

1. That the perfections of God, and the 
principles of his moral government, render 
it impossible that he should save sinners 
without atonement. 

2. It has been proved that no atonement 
has been, or can be made, unless it has been 
made by Jesus Christ. This brings us to 
rest upon Paul's doctrine, who said of 
Christ, " In whom we have redemption 
through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, 
according to the riches of his grace." 
Eph. i. 7. 

SECTION II. 

The Atonement proved from the Mosaic 
Ritual. 

The Mosaic system, by a variety of types, 
represented Christ in his great sacrificial 
office and work, as the Eedeemer of man- 
kind, and propitiary offering for their sins. 
The whole significance and beauty, and 
power of Judaism depends upon the fact 
that it symbolized Christ as the great 
atoning sacrifice for the sins of men. Deny 
this doctrine, and its power, and beauty, 
aud glory are gone. A few only of the lead- 
ing sacrifices of the law need be noticed. 

I. The common sin offering, personally 
required of every individual sinner, is 
clearly expressive of the sacrificial death of 
Christ. 

Lev. iv. 27-31 : " And if any of the com- 
mon people sin, he shall bring his offering, 
a kid of the goats, a female without blem- 
ish, for his sin which he hath sinned : and 
he shall lay his hand upon the head of the 
sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the 
place of the burnt offering. And the priest 
shall take of the blood thereof with his fin- 
ger, and put it upon the horns of the altar 
of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the 
blood thereof at the bottom of the altar ; 
and he shall take away all the fat thereof, 
as the fat is taken away from off the sacri- 



fice of peace offerings, and the priest shall 
burn it upon the altar for a sweet savor 
unto the Lord ; and the priest shall make 
an atonement for him, and it shall be for- 
given him." 

If God did not require a sacrifice for sin, 
as an expiation of the sinner's guilt, there 
can be no meaning in the whole of the above 
performance. The sinner laid his hand 
upon the victim that was to be slain, de- 
noting a symbolical transfer of sin from the 
sinner to the sin offering ; the lattei* dying 
in the place of the former. Nor can it be 
pretended that the offering was a mere fine 
for the sinner's trespass, for in such case it 
would have been an offset, in itself consid- 
ered, which was not the case, as appears 
from two circumstances. 

1. The victim received all its validity, as! 
a sacrifice for sin, from the place and cir- 
cumstance of the offering, and not from any 
intrinsic value it possessed in itself, as being 
equal to damages sustained by the sinner's 
trespass. Had the victim been offered in 
any other place, save in the sanctuary, it 
would not have been accepted as an atone- 
ment for sin. The sanctuary was regarded 
as the place of the divine presence, for in it 
God had recorded his name ; and this being 
the place where the sacrifice was made, 
marked it as an offering to God on the part 
of the sinner. The offering was made by 
the priest, who must be acknowledged to 
be the type of Jesus Christ, in his great 
sacrificial work. Had the sacrifice been 
presented by any other person save the 
priest, it would have been no atonement ; 
whereas neither the place nor the person 
making the offering, could have effected its 
value, if it was to be regarded as a mere 
fine for trespass. Again, nothing else, of 
the same or even greater value, than the vic- 
tims prescribed by the law, could have been 
accepted in their place, as a sin offering, 
which shows that the law did not have re- 
ference to their value as a fine for an equal 
amount of damage done, but that they were 
by divine appointment, rendered acceptable 
in their death, as a substitute for the sin- 



CHAP. VI.] 



THE ATONEMENT. 



129 



ner's death, who had forfeited his life by 
his sin. 

2. The offender was not released on the 
ground of having paid an equivalent foi 
his sin, which must have been the case if 
his oflPering was regarded as a mere fine for 
his trespass ; but he received a pardon of 
the offence on the presentation of his sin 
offering. It is said, " the priest shall make 
an atonement for him, and it shall be for- 
given him." This clearly proves that an 
atonement for sin was directed by the law, 
to be made to God, to procure his pardon, 
and not to man, exclusively to procure his 
reconciliation to God. It also proves that 
the atonement, directed by the law, was an 
expiation of the sinner's guilt, effecting his 
deliverance from the punishment he de 
served, not however, by an absolute pay 
ment of the debt, but by procuring a par- 
don. God pardoned the sinner on the 
ground of the sin offering or atonement, di- 
rected to be made by the priest of the 
sanctuary, which was rendered acceptable 
by two circumstances. 

1. It was of God's own appointment. 

2. It had reference to, and typically 
pointed out, the sacrificial death of Jesus 
Christ, " who gave himself a ransom for all, 
by whom we have now received ihe atone- 
ment." 

In view of these facts, it was rendered 
efficacious in procuring pardon, when offer- 
ed through faith in the promise of God, 
made to Abraham, that in his seed, that is, 
Christ, all nations should be blessed. 

II. The annual atonement offered by the 
high priest for the whole nation, clearly sym- 
bolized Christ. Lev. xvi. 5, V, 8, 9, 10, 21, 
22 : " And he shall take of the congrega- 
tion of the children of Israel, two kids of 
the goats, for a sin offering, and he shall take 
the two goats and present them before the 
Lord at the door of the congregation. And 
Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats ; 
one lot for the Lord and the other lot for 
the scape goat ; and Aaron shall bring the 
goat upon which the Lord's lot fell, and 
offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, 



on which the lot fell to be the scape goat, 
shall be presented alive before the Lord, to 
make an atonement with him, and to let him 
go for a scape goat into the wilderness. 
And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon 
the head of the live goat, and confess over 
him all the iniquities of the children of Is- 
rael, and all their transgressions in all their 
sins, putting them upon the head of the 
goat, and shall send him away by the hand 
of a fit man into the wilderness ; and the 
goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities 
unto a land not inhabited." 

On this offering Dr. Clarke has made the 
following remarks : " It is allowed on all 
hands that this ceremony, taken in all its 
parts, pointed out the Lord Jesus dying for 
our sins, and rising again for our justifica- 
tion ; being put to death in the flesh, but 
quickened by the spirit. Two goats are 
brought, one to be slain as a sacrifice for 
sin, the other to have the transgressions of 
the people confessed over his head, and then 
to be sent away into the wilderness. This 
animal, by this act was represented as bear- 
ing away, and carrying off, the sins of the 
people. The two goats made only one sac- 
rifice ; yet only one of them was slain. One 
animal could not point out both the divine 
and human nature of Christ, nor show both 
his death and resurrection, for the goat that 
was killed could not be made alive. The 
divine and human natures of Christ were 
essential to the grand expiation : yet the 
human nature alone suffered; for the di- 
vine nature could not suffer ; but its pre- 
sence in the human nature, while agonizing 
unto death, stamped those agonies, and 
the consequent death, with infinite merit. 
The goat therefore, that was slain, prefigured 
his human nature, and its death : the goat 
that escaped, pointed out his resurrection. 
The one shows the atonement for sin as the 
ground of justification ; the other Christ's 
victory, and the total removal of sin in the 
sanctification of the soul." 

In addition to the above extract from the 
learned Doctor, it is proper to remark, 
1. That the offering must be regarded as 



130 



THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



an atonement for sin and expiation of the 
sinner's guilt, from the plain and simple 
language in which it is set forth. " And 
Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the 
head of the live goat, and confess over him 
all the iniquities of the children of Israel, 
and the goat shall bear on him all their ini- 
quities unto a land not inhabited." Here 
is an actual removal of sin, not by suffering 
its punishment, but by an atonement or ex- 
piation. Is it said that this bearing away 
of the sins of the people by the scape goat 
was not real, but symbolical, or typical ? It 
is replied, that this does not in the least in 
validate the argument ; for if the Mosaic 
ritual, in pointing to better things to come, 
symbolically represented the removal of sin 
by an atonement, then, it must follow that 
the better covenant provides a real atone 
ment which does in fact remove sin and save 
from the punishment it deserves. 

2. The atonements, made under the law 
•were symbols and types of the atonement or 
'Offering of Jesus Christ, who gave himself 
a ransom for all. This position is clearly 
•sustained by the reasoning of the Apostle. 
•Heb. ix. 1, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 
'26 : " Then verily, the first covenant had 
also ordinances of divine service, and a 
worldly sanctuary, which was a figure for 
the time then present, in which were offered 
both gifts and sacrifices, that could not 
make him that did the service perfect as 
pei^taining to the conscience. But Christ 
being come, a high priest of good things to 
come, by a greater and more perfect taber- 
nacle, not made with hands ; neither by the 
blood of goats and calves, but by his own 
blood, he entered once into the holy place, 
having obtained eternal redemption for us. 
■For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and 
the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, 
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how 
much more shall the blood of Christ, who 
through the eternal Spirit, offered himself 
without spot, to God, purge your conscience 
from dead works to serve the living God. 
And almost all things are by the law purged 
with blood ; and without shedding of blood 



is no remission. It was therefore necessary 
that the patterns of things in the heavens, 
should be purified with these ; for Christ is 
not entered into the holy place made with 
hands, which are the figures of the true ; 
but into heaven itself, now to appear in the 
presence of God for us : nor yet that he 
should offer himself often, as the high priest 
entereth into the holy place every year with 
blood of others ; for then must he often have 
suffered since the foundation of the world : 
but now once in the end of the world hath 
he appeared to put away sin by the sacri- 
fice of himself." 

This language of the apostle is too plain to 
be misunderstood or to need explanation. 
It must be seen that he draws a comparison 
between the offerings under the law and the 
one offering of Jesus Christ, and represents 
the former as shadowing forth the latter, 
and the latter as the substance, object, and 
end of the former ; exceeding them in cha- 
racter and value in the same proportion in 
which a substance outweighs a shadow, or 
a thing itself transcends its mere pattern or 
symbol. He refers directly to the annual 
atonement made by the high priest : " Nor 
yet that he (Christ) should offer himself 
often, as the high priest entereth into the 
holy place every year with blood of others." 
This offering he represents only as a tempo- 
rary relief, saying, Chap. x. 3 : " But in 
those sacrifices there is a remembrance made 
of sins every year," but the offering of Christ 
he represents as being more perfect, saying, 
" he entered in once into the holy place, 
having obtained eternal redemption for us," 
having " now once in the end of the world 
appeared to put away sin by the offering 
of himself" Much more might be said un- 
der this head, but sufficient has been ad- 
vanced to show that the sacrifices of the 
Mosaic ritual, point out Jesus Christ, as a 
real atonement and expiatory sacrifice for 
sin. Deny the vicarious and expiatory 
character of the sufferings and death of 
Jesus Christ, and the ceremonial worship 
of the Jews loses its charm, their sanctuary 
is divested of its significant grandeur, their 



CHAP. VI.] 



THE ATONEMENT. 



131 



smoking altars lose their sanctity, tlie con- 
fession upon the head of the scape goat be- 
comes foolish mummery, and their sacrifices 
of slaughtered hecatombs are rendered use- 
less, barbarous and cruel. 



SECTION III. 

The Death of Christ. 

The peculiar facts and circumstances con- 
nected with the death of Christ, prove that 
he died as the world's atoning sacrifice. 
Christ suffered as man's substitute and 
atoning sacrifice for sin, or he suffered only 
as a martyr. There is no middle ground, 
nor other ground than the one or other of 
these positions. The argument rests upon 
the fact, that the peculiar phenomena con- 
nected with his death, cannot be explained 
upon the supposition that he died as a mar- 
tyr only, but upon the supposition that he 
died as the world's atoning sacrifice for sin, 
all is accounted for. 

I. The terrible agony and principal suf- 
fering of Christ, clearly resulted from some 
unknown cause, unless he suffered for the 
sins of men. What produced that fearful 
scene in the garden ? 

1. It was not self-inflicted. This is clear, 
from the fact that he prayed to be delivered 
from it : " Father, if thou be willing, let 
this cup pass from me." 

2. His sufferings in the garden were not 
produced by his enemies. This is clear, 
from the fact that the officers commissioned 
to arrest him, had not- arrived when the 
scene of his agony transpired. He was 
alone, wifh his sleepy disciples at the dis- 
tance of a stone's cast, when his soul be- 
came " exceeding sorrowful, even unto 
death." 

3. To say that his agony was the result 
of his fears of what he saw would be inflict- 
ed, would render him inglorious, and an un- 
worthy example as a martyr. Not one of 
his martyred followers ever betrayed such 
weakness. There was then something pres- 
ent in his suffering, beyond the sufferings of 



any common death ; beyond what any mere 
martyr ever suffered. 

II. Christ clearly suffered more in the 
process of dying, than other men do or can 
suffer. 

1. The description given of his agony by 
the several writers, proves it to have trans- 
cended all other deaths. 

Matthew says, " he began to be sorrow- 
ful and very heavy." The Greek word, 
adeemonein, here rendered, " very heavy," 
signifies, to faint with labor, or to be over- 
whelmed with anguish. 

Mark says, " he began to be sore amaz- 
ed." 

Sore amazed, from Ekthambeo, eh, in- 
tense, and thambeo, to amaze ; intense amaze- 
ment, or intensely amazed. 

Luke says, " being in an agony, he prayed 
more earnestly." 

The Greek word, agonia, rendered agony, 
occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. 
It signifies strife, conflict for victory, a vio- 
lent struggle which produces anguish. 

The Saviour's own words are, " My soul 
is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." 
The Greek word, perilupos, here rendered 
exceeding sorrowful, is composed of peri, 
intense, and lupee, grief, hence, it expresses 
intense grief The sense is very, or exceed- 
ing sorrowful. In all these descriptions of 
the Saviour's agony, those terms are em- 
ployed which express the highest degree of 
mental anguish, which any words in the lan- 
guage could express, in the respective forms 
of speech employed. Compare all this with 
the accounts given of the deaths of the early 
martyrs, and how clearly does it appear 
that Christ suffered more in the process of 
dying, than other men do or can suffer. 

2. His own prayer proves the intensity 
of his suffering, above those of any martyr 
of whom we have any account. Matthew 
says he prayed, " my Father, if it be pos- 
sible, let this cup pass from me." 

Mark says, " He went forward a little, 
and fell on the ground, and prayed, that if 
it were possible, the hour might pass from 
him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things 



132 



THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



are possible unto thee, take away this cup 
from me : nevertlieless not what I will, but 
what thou wilt." 

Luke says, he prayed, " Father, if thou 
be willing,*remove this cup from me." The 
cup spoken of was that bitter agony which 
was then crushing his soul, and under which 
he must have died before reaching the cross, 
had it not been removed. But it was re- 
moved, the cup did then pass in answer to 
that prayer, and he became calm. To this 
the apostle doubtless alludes, Heb. v. 7 : 
" Who in the days of his flesh, when he 
had offered up prayers and supplications, 
with strong crying and tears, unto him that 
was able to save him from death, aifid was 
heard in that he feared." 

He was saved as remarked above, and 
was calm until he had passed through the 
forms of his mock trial, and until all was 
fulfilled that had been predicted of him, and 
then the cup returned, and he died from its 
bitter, soul crushing agony. 

3. The fact that an angel came from heav- 
en and strengthed him, is clear proof that 
his sufferings were greater than other mar- 
tyrs endured, who had no such support. 
The language of Luke is, " There appeared 
an angel unto him from heaven, strengthen- 
ing him." This angelic support was ren- 
dered before any violence had been offered 
to his physical nature, and hence it was a 
support under the mental anguish which 
he endured under the weight of the world's 
sin. 

4. His bloody sweat is proof of the ter- 
rible nature of his anguish. The language 
of Luke is, " And being in an agony, he 
prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was as 
it were great drops of blood falling to the 
ground." There was no cause of sweat at 
all, but the anguish of his soul, for which 
there was no visible cause. It was in the 
cool hour of night. It was also on the 
night of the second day of April, a cool 
season of the year. How terrible must his 
agony have been, to so convulse his whole 
organization, as to mingle his blood with his 
sweat, producing great scarlet di'ops falling 



to the groimd, from the open pores of his 
prostrate body ? 

5. His complaint upon the cross, proves 
his sufferings, not only to have been great, 
but such in kind as no mere martyr ever 
endured. In his agony in the Garden, sup- 
port was rendered him from heaven, and the 
Father heard his prayer, and removed the 
cup of anguish, but when that cup was re- 
turned to him upon the cross, no angel 
strengthened him, and the Father closed his 
ear to his prayer, and hid his face behind 
the cloud of divine wrath, which hung over 
a world of guilty sinners, and then he cried, 
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken 
me ?" He cried with a loud voice, as no 
martyr ever cried, and complained of an 
evil of which no martyr ever complained, 
that God forsook him in the dying hour. 
He then appeared as man's substitute, as 
the atoning sacrifice of the world, and the 
divine law, violated by universal humanity, 
rose between him and the Father's smile, 
and shot its ten thousand lightning stings 
into his soul, and he died. 

6. His early death proves his suffering to 
have been greater than the natural conse- 
quences of crucifixion. Death upon the 
cross must be terrible, from the fact that it 
is so protracted. But Christ endured none 
of its lingering anguish. He died suddenly, 
and with a fearful convulsion, which rent 
the rocks and caused the earth to quake. 
He died before the other persons, crucified 
at the same time, and sooner than was usu- 
al, and sooner than was expected. As it 
was not lawful for them to remain on the 
cross over the approaching Sabbath, they 
made a finish of life by breaking their bones, 
but when they came to Christ, they found 
him already dead, and broke not his bones. 
And so unusual and unexpected was it for 
persons to die so soon, that Pilate marveled 
and refused to give up his body, until he 
had called the centurion, and learned from 
him that he was really dead. All this shows 
that he suffered more than a mere martyr, 
and that his death did not result from the 
violence offered to his physical nature, but 



CHAP. YI.] 



THE ATONEMENT. 



133 



that he died as a free will offering, a volun- 
tary sacrifice for the sins of men. He died 
under the weight of the world's sin. No 
other explanation can be given of the vari- 
ous phenomena connected with his death, 
only that he died for the sins of men. 

SECTION IV. 

The Scriptures represent Christ as a Re- 
deemer, and man as Redeemed by him. 

The terms employed are various, but the 
idea of Redeemer and redeemed, is found 
running through the whole record of the 
New Testament. Let the argument be 
opened with the word ransom. Matt. xx. 
28 : " The Son of man came to give his life 
a ransom for many." 1 Tim. ii. 6 : " Who 
gave himself a ransom for all." 

If the argument was to be settled by the 
English word, ransom, it would- leave but 
little room for dispute. The noun, ransom, 
signifies the price paid for the release or re- 
demption of a prisoner or captive. Or it 
denotes the deliverance which is effected by 
a price paid. 

The verb, to ransom, signifies, to redeem 
from captivity by paying an equivalent. 
Now, if it was in this sense that Christ gave 
his life a ransom for sinners, the argument 
is conclusive. The question then is, does 
the word ransom fairly represent the sense 
of the original ? The Greek word used by 
the Evangelist is lutron, which signifies, 
ransom, redemption, atonement, the price 
paid for deliverance. 

The word used by Paul in the text above 
quoted, is antilutron. This word is com- 
pounded of anti, against, opposite, and lu- 
tron, a ransom or price, hence, anti-lutron 
signifies a price put down against or oppo- 
site a captive, to purchase his release. There 
is not another word in the G-reek language, 
which would so perfectly express the idea 
that Christ died to redeem sinners, by giv- 
ing his life a ransom for theirs. 

The same idea is expressed by the words 
redeem and redemption. 



Rom. iii. 24 : " Being justified freely by 
his grace, through the redemption that is in 
Christ Jesus." 1 Cor. i. 30 : " But of him 
are ye in Christ Jesus, who, of God, is made 
unto us redemption." Gal. iv. 4 : " God 
sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made 
under the law, to redeem them that were un- 
der the law." Tit. ii. 14 : " Who gave him- 
self for us, that he might redeem us from all 
iniquity." Heb. ix. 15 : " And for this 
cause he is the Mediator of the New Testa- 
ment, that by means of death, for the re- 
demption of the transgressors that were un- 
der the first testament, that they which are 
called might receive the promise of eternal 
inheritance." 

It is clear, from these texts, that Christ 
has redeemed us, that he is the Redeemer, 
and we the redeemed. What then is it to 
redeem ? 

" To purchase back ; to ransom ; to libe- 
rate or rescue from captivity or bondage, or 
from any obligation, or liability to suffer or 
to be forfeited, by paying an equivalent. 
To re-purchase what has been sold ; to 
regain possession of a thing alienated, by 
repaying the value of it." 

Hence redemption is the " re-purchase of 
captured goods or persons ; the act of pro- 
curing the deliverance of persons or things 
from the possession and power of captors 
by the payment of an equivalent. ^■^"^Tn 
theology, the ransom or deliverance of sin- 
ners from the bondage of sin, and the pen- 
alties of God's violated law, by the atone- 
ment of Christ." — Webster. 

Let it now be shown that the English 
■\Vords fairly represent the Greek. 

Apolutrosis is the Greek word rendered 
redemption, which signifies a releasing on 
payment of ransom, a ransoming, deliver- 
ance, redemption. This word occurs only 
ten times in the New Testament, and is used 
essentially in the same sense in every in- 
stance. The following are the texts, Luke 
xxi. 28 : " Your redemption draweth nigh." 
Rom. iii. 24 : " Through the redemption 
that is in Christ Jesus." viii. 23 : " The 
redemption of our body." 1 Cor. i. 30 : 



134 



THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



" Eig-liteous sanctification and redemption.'" 
Eph. i. 7 : " In whom we have redemp- 
tion." 14 : " Until the redemption of the 
purchased possession." iv. 30 : " Unto the 
day of redemption.'' Col. i. 14 : " In whom 
we have redemption." Heb. ix. 15 : " For 
the redemption of the transgressions." xi. 
35 : " Not accepting deliverance." In the 
last text the word is rendered deliverance, 
and might as well, or perhaps better have 
been so rendered in the first, but the sense 
is perfectly clear. In every case where it 
speaks of redemption by Christ, redemption 
by his death is meant. 

There are two Greek words which are 
rendered redeem and redeemed. The first 
is exagorazo. This word signifies, to buy 
fi^om one, to release, to redeem, to redeem 
for one's self. It occurs but four times in 
the New Testament, as follows : " Gal. iii. 
13 : " Christ hath redeemed us from the 
curse of the law." iv. 5 : " To redeem them 
that were under the law." Eph. v. 16, and 
Col. iv. 5 : " Redeeming the time." 

In the first two of these texts, the doc- 
trine of the redemption of sinners by price, 
is clearly affirmed. The other Greek word 
rendered redeem and redeemed, is lutroo. 
This word signifies to release on receipt of 
ransom, to hold to ransom, to release by 
payment of ransom. The word occurs but 
three times in the New Testament, as fol- 
lows : " Luke xxiv. 21 : " We trusted that 
it had been he which should have redeemed 
Israel." Titus ii. 14 : " Who gave himself 
for us, that he might redeem us from all in- 
iquity." 1 Peter i. 18, 19 : " Ye were not 
redeemed with corruptible things, as silver 
and gold, but with the precious blood of 
Christ." 

If the doctrine that Christ died for sinners 
to save them by giving his life a ransom 
for theirs, is not taught in these passages, it 
could not be taught in the use of any lan- 
guage. 

There is yet another word which expresses 
the same doctrine. It is agorazo, which 
signifies to buy for one's self, or to acquire 
by a ransom or price paid. This word oc- 



curs thirty-one times in the New Testament, 
and is rendered, buy and bought, in every 
case but three, and in those it is rendered 
redeemed. These three cases are Rev. v. 9, 
xiv. 3, 4. Out of the twenty-eight times in 
which it is rendered buy and bought, it is 
three times applied to redemption by Christ 
as follows : 1 Cor. vi. 20 : " Ye are bought 
with a price ; therefore, glorify God in your 
body and in your spirit, which are his." 
vii. 23 : " Ye are bought with a price ; be 
not ye the servants of men." 2 Peter ii. 1 : 
" Even denying the Lord that bought them." 
This clearly settles the fact that the re- 
demption of sinners by Christ, is represented 
as a purchase. 



SECTION V. 

The Scriptures represent Christ as a Media- 
tor, Intercessor, Reconciler and Advocate. 

Christ is clearly declared to be a Media- 
tor between God and men. Dr. Webster's 
definition of the English word is so much 
to the point as to render it proper to quote 
it as follows : " Mediator." 1. One that in- 
terposes between parties at variance, for the 
purpose of reconcihng them. 2. By way 
of eminence, Christ is the mediator. 
Christ is a mediator by nature, as partak- 
ing of both natures, divine and human ; and 
mediator by office, as transacting matters be- 
tween God and man." This settles the mat- 
ter, so far as the English word is concerned. 
But does it truly represent the Greek. This 
cannot be successfully denied. 

The Greek word rendered mediator, is 
mesitees, and signifies, literally, one that is 
in the middle, a mediator, a peace-maker. 
The word never was used by Greek writers 
in any other sense. The word occurs only 
six times in the New Testament, and in every 
instance it is used in the above sense, as fol- 
lows : 

Gal. iii. 19, 20 : " Wherefore, then, serv- 
eth the law ? It was added, because of 
transgressions, till the seed should come to 
whom the promise was made, and it was or- 



CHAP. YI.] 



THE ATONEMENT. 



135 



dained by angels in the hand of a mediator 
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one : 
but God is one." 

This text has generally been understood 
to speak of Moses as the mediator, but this 
construction appears to depend more upon 
the force of the words which the translators 
have added, which are not in the original, 
than upon the text itself. These words are, 
" and it was,'' in the 19th verse, and " a Me- 
diator,'' in the 20th verse. Omit these 
words, which are no part of the text, and it 
will read thus : " It (the law) was added 
because of transgressions, till the seed should 
come, to whom the promise was made, or 
dained by angels in the hand of a mediator 
Now, a mediator is not of one, but God is 
one." Thus reading the text, the 19th verse 
asserts that the promise, and not the law 
was ordained by angels in the hand of a me- 
mediator. This clearly makes Christ the 
mediator, in whose hand the promise was 
ordained for fulfillment. The sense of the 
20th verse is, " Now a mediator is not of 
one [party] but God is one." [party.] 

This relieves the text of all the obscurity 
which commentators have fancied enveloped 
it, and makes it assert a very simple truth. 
Christ, the mediator, is not a mediator of 
one party, as a mediator acts between two 
parties, and God is one of these parties, and 
man the other. This view also has the ad- 
vantage of harmonizing with the use of the 
Avord mediator in every other instance 
Moses is nowhere else called a mediator, but 
Christ is, in every case where the word is 
used. It also agrees better with the general 
design of the apostle's argument, which is 
to prove that the law could not disannul 
the covenant which was confirmed in Christ 
the mediator. 

So much space has not been devoted to 
this text, because it is of vital importance 
in itself, but because it contains the word 
mediator, which, in every other instance of 
its use, is applied to Christ. 1 Tim. ii. 5 : 
" For there is one God and one mediator 
Detween God and men, the man Christ 
Jesus." 



This text is clear and decisive. Christ 
is a mediator between God and men, and on 
what ground he mediates, the next verse 
affirms, when it says, he " gave himself a 
ramsom for ail," that is, all men. Heb. 
viii. 6 : " But now hath he obtained a more 
excellent ministry, by how much more also, 
he is the mediator of a better covenant, 
which was established upon better promises." 

How Christ is a mediator of a better 
covenant, will be seen by consulting the 
next case in which the word occurs, as fol- 
lows. Heb. ix. 13-15 : " For if the blood of 
bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, 
sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the 
purifying of the flesh, how much more shall 
the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal 
Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, 
purge your conscience from dead works to 
serve the living God? And .for this cause 
he is the mediator of the New Testament, 
that by means of death, for the redemption 
of the transgressors that were under the 
first Testament, they which are called might 
receive the promise of eternal inheritance." 
This clearly proves that Christ was inducted 
into his office of mediator, by a baptism of 
blood and death, and that his blood and 
death were for the redemption of those in 
whose behalf he mediates. Heb. xii. 24 : 
" And to Jesus the mediator of the new 
covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling.'* 
Here again the mediation of Christ is asso- 
ciated with his blood, that was shed for our 
redemption. 

The reader now has before him every 
text in which the word mediator occurs, 
and it must appear plain that the whole 
doctrine of mediation is grounded upon 
Christ's sacrificial death for sinners. 

But the doctrine of Christ's intercession, 
and advocacy with the Father for us, is 
but another form in which the same great 
truth is clearly presented in the Scriptures. 

Eora. viii. 34 : " Who is he that con- 
demneih ? It is Christ that died, yea rath- 
er that is risen again, who is even at the 
right hand of God, who maketh interces- 
sion for us." 



136 



THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



Heb. vii. 25 : " He is able also to save 
them to the uttermost that come unto God 
by him, seeing he ever liveth to make in- 
tercession for them." 

Heb. ix. 24 : " Christ is not entered into 
the holy places made with hands, which are 
the figures of the true ; but into heaven itself, 
now to appear in the presence of God for us." 

The doctrine of Christ's intercession for 
us, is that he interposes his own merits with 
God for us, which involves the atonement. 
With this view of the Intercession of 
Christ, that remarkable text accords, 1 
John ii. 1, 2 : " If any man sin, we have 
an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, 
the righteous : and he is the propitiation 
for our sins : and not for ours only, but 
also for the sins of the whole world." This 
text is very decisive, for it declares that 
Christ is our * advocate with the Father. 
And on what ground he advocates our 
cause, is clearly explained in the declara- 
tion, that he is " the propitiation for our 
sins." He is our advocate with the Father, 
because he is the propitiation for our sins. 
The same word is used again in chap. iv. 
10 : " Herein is love, not that we loved 
God, but that he loved us, and sent his son 
to be the propitiation for our sins." This 
word occurs only in these two texts. The 
original is, hilasmos, which signifies, atone- 
ment, reconciliation, a sacrifice, or sin offer- 
ing. 

It is clear then that the doctrine of 
Christ's mediation, intercession and advo- 
cacy, as taught in the Scriptures, involve 
the doctrine of his sacrificial death for sin- 
ners, as their substitute, and expiatory offer- 
ing for sin. 

SECTION VI. 

The Scriptures attribute the removal of sin, 
and the Salvation of sinners to the suffer- 
ings, blood, deatJi, and resurrection of 
Christ. 

John i. 29 : " Behold the Lamb of God 
that taketh away the sins of the world." 



1. This text attributes the removal of 
the sin of the world to Jesus Christ, which 
can in no wise be true unless he was, in 
some way, an expiation for sin, removing 
its guilt, and delivering the offender from 
its punishment. If, as Universalists con- 
tend, Christ does not save from guilt and 
punishment, only by saving from the future 
commission of sin, in no sense can it be 
said that the sin of the world is taken away 
by him. It might be said, on this princi- 
ple, that he prevents the future sin of the 
world which would be committed, were it 
not for his interposition ; but it cannot be 
said that he takes away the sin of the world, 
for that which has not been committed has 
no existence, and cannot be removed, and 
that which has been committed, is not tak- 
en away, on the above theory, since it as- 
serts that Christ does not save from its 
guilt and punishment. Now, as this text 
can be true only on the ground of the sac- 
rificial death of Christ, it is to be regarded 
as proof that such death was an expiatory 
ofiering, by which the guilt of sin is re- 
moved, and its punishment averted. 

2. The manifest allusion, which the text 
contains, to the sacrifices of the law, shows 
that John referred to the sacrificial death 
of Christ, as the means by which he takes 
away the sin of the w^orld. " Behold the 
LAMB of GOD." He is termed the Lamb 
of God, no doubt, in reference to the Pas- 
chal Lamb, or to the sacrifice of two lambs 
for a daily offering. Exo. xxix. 38, 39 : 
" Now this is that which thou shalt offer 
upon the altar, two lambs of the first year, 
day by day continually. The one lamb 
thou shalt offer in the morning, and the 
other lamb thou shalt offer at even." Now, 
as lambs were offered for daily sin offerings, 
which offerings were typical of the one 
offering of Jesus Christ, he is called the 
Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of 
the world, of whom the prophet says, (Isa. 
liii. 7,) " He is brought as a lamb to the 
slaughter." 

Dr. Clarke's note on the text under con- 
sideration, deserves particular attention. 



CHAP. VI.] 



THE ATONEMENT. 



137 



« ' Behold the Lamb of God.' This was 
said in allusion to what was spoken Isa. 
liii. 7. Jesus was the true Lamb or sacri- 
fice required and appointed by God, of 
which, those offered daily in the tabernacle 
and temple, Exo. xxix. 38, 39, and especially 
the Paschal lamb, were only the types and 
representatives. The continual morning 
and evening sacrifices of a lamb under the 
Jewish law, was intended to point out the 
continual efficacy of the blood of atonement : 
forever at the throne of God, Jesus Christ 
is ever represented as a Lamb newly slain. 
Eev. V. 6. But John, pointing to Christ, 
calls him emphatically the Lamb of God — 
all the lambs which had hitherto been off- 
ered, had been furnished by men ; this was 
provided by God, as the only sufficient and 
available sacrifice for the sin of the world. 
In three essential respects, this lamb differ- 
ed from those by which it was represented. 
1st. It was the Lamb of God : the most 
excellent and most available. 2d. It made 
an atonement for sin : it carried sin away 
in reality ; the others only representatively. 
3d. It carried away the sin of the world ; 
whereas the other was offered only in be- 
half of the Jewish people.'" 

John vi. 51, 53, 54, 55. " And the bread 
that I will give is my flesh, which I will give 
for the life of the world. Except ye eat 
the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his 
blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eat- 
eth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath 
eternal life ; for my flesh is meet indeed, and 
my blood is drink indeed." We presume it 
will not be necessary to attempt a refuta- 
tion of the Eomish doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation, as inferred from the above text, for 
the satisfaction of U niversalists, who pay 
less attention to the holy sacrament, than 
any other class of professing Christians, with 
the exception of the honest Quakers. And 
without any reference of this absurd notion, 
as to the manner of partaking of the body 
and blood of Jesus Christ, how clearly does 
the quotation attribute salvation to the 
broken body and spilt blood, or in other 
words, ttt the suffering and death of Jesus 



Christ? When Christ speaks of giving 
his flesh and blood for the life of the world, 
it is evident that he has reference to the 
offering which he made upon the cross. And 
as he declared " except ye eat the flesh of 
the Son of Man, and drink his blood" — i. e. 
except ye partake of the merits of his death, 
through faith in his name — " ye have no 
life in you ;" his broken body and spilt blood 
are here represented as the source of eternal 
life : " Whosoever eateth my flesh and drink- 
eth my blood hath eternal life." And in no 
other way can the death of Christ be the 
source of life to the world, only by being 
an atonement for sin, by which sinners are 
" redeemed from the curse of the law," which 
is death, " for the wages of sin is death, but 
the gift of God is eternal life through Jesua 
Christ our Lord." 

Eom. V. 9 : " Much more then, being now 
justified by his blood, we shall be saved from 
wrath through him." In this text, tho 
blood of Jesus Christ is asserted as the 
ground of our justification ; and that justi- 
fication implies the removal of our guilt, 
and remission of our punishment, is clear 
from its being followed by salvation or de- 
liverance from wrath, " being justified by 
his blood we shall be saved from wrath 
through him." This most clearly marks the 
death and blood of Christ as an atonement 
and expiation of the sinner's guilt ; for on 
no other principle can we be justified by the 
blood of Christ, any more than by the blood 
of Paul or of Peter. 

Heb. ii. 14 : " For as much then as the 
children are partakers of flesh and blood, 
he also himself took part of the same ; that 
through death he might destroy him that 
had the power of death, that is, the devil." 
This text does not, as some have supposed, 
prove that the devil will cease to exist, be- 
cause destruction does not mean annihila- 
tion. This will not be maintained by those 
who deny the atonement, for they generally 
hold that all men will be saved, notwith- 
standing the wicked are to be destroyed. 
But while the text does not teach the de- 
struction of the devil, in the sense of anni- 



138 



THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



hilation, it furnishes the most conchisive evi- 
dence that the success of the Redeemer's 
kingdom, in the overthrow of the devil, and 
in rescuing from the bondage of sin and 
death, all that believe in Christ, and cleave 
to his cross, is the result of his sufferings and 
death : " that through death he might de- 
stroy him that had the power of death." 
Whatever different views may be entertained 
concerning the devil's having the power of 
death, and in relation to his destruction, 
they cannot effect the argument ; since, all 
must admit, that the text teaches that the 
death of Christ was necessary in order to 
the accomplishment of the object of which 
it speaks, and that this object is one insepa- 
rably connected with the salvation of sinners. 
The death of Christ, then, was intended to 
destroy him who had the power of death, 
and -thereby to deliver those who through 
fear of death were subject to bondage ; the 
death of Christ, therefore must have been a 
substitute for the death of those who were 
delivered from death by it. 

Eph. i. 7 : " In whom we have redemp- 
tion through his blood, the forgiveness of 
sins, according to the riches of his grace." 
Col. i. 14 : " In whom we have redemption 
through his blood, even the forgiveness of 
sins." 

Here are two texts, which, in the use 
of the same language, attribute our re- 
demption and forgiveness of sins to the 
blood of Christ. Without the shedding of 
blood, therefore, there would have been no 
redemption nor forgiveness of sins, and with- 
out these, there could have been no salva- 
tion. Our entire salvation, therefore, is at- 
tributed to the blood of the cross. 1 Pet. i. 
18, 19 : " Ye w^ere not redeemed with cor- 
ruptible things, as silver and gold, but with 
the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb 
without blemish and without spot." 

1 John i. 7 : " But if we walk in the light, 
as he is in the light, we have fellowship with 
one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ 
his Son cleanseth us from all sin." It can 
hardly be necessary to make a remark to 
show that this plain declaration attributes 



to the blood of Christ the power of remov- 
ing sin. The entire washing of the soul 
from the pollution of sin, is here ascribed ta 
the blood of the cross. And from what sin 
does the blood of Christ cleanse ? Most cer- 
tainly from that which has been committed ; 
for it would be trifling to talk of being 
cleansed in anticipation of pollution. It is 
from " all sin," which includes sin of every 
kind and degree. The blood of the cross, 
therefore, is an expiation for sin, and has 
the power of removing its guilt, washing 
away its pollution, and averting its punish- 
ment. 

Rev. i. 5 : " Unto him that loved us, and 
washed us from our sins in his own blood, 
be glory and dominion forever and ever." 
Chap. V. 9 : " And they sung a new song, 
saying, thou art worthy to take the book 
and to open the seals thereof : for thou wast 
slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy 
blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and 
people, and nation." Chap. vii. 14 : " These 
are they which came out of great tribula- 
tion, and have washed their robes and made 
them white in the blood of the Lamb." 
Such plain declarations of the efficacy of 
the blood of the cross, in washing away our 
sins, clearly point out the death and blood 
of Christ as an atoning and expiatory sac- 
rifice for sinners, and show that our entire 
salvation depends upon what he has done 
and suffered for us. 



SECTION YII. 

The Scriptures assert Directly, the Sacrificial 
and Propitiatory Character of Christ's 
Sufferings and Death. 

The Scriptures teach directly, that the 
sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, were 
in the place of the punishment which was 
due to sinners ; he suffering in their stead, 
l^earing the punishment which they other- 
wise must have borne, and from which they, 
consequently, may now be delivered on gos- 
pel terms. 



CHAP. VI.] 



THE ATONEMENT. 



139 



Isa. liii. 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 : " He was wounded 
for our transgressions, lie was bruised for 
our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace 
was upon him, and with his stripes we are 
healed. The Lord hath laid upon him the 
iniquity of us all ; for the transgression of 
my people was he stricken. He shall bear 
their iniquities, and he bore the sin of many, 
and made intercession for the transgres- 
sors." 

That this whole chapter relates to Jesus 
Christ, there is no doubt, and if it does not 
teach that he suffered for sinners, bearing a 
punishment for their sins, it is because the 
sentiment cannot be couched in the English 
language. Why was he wounded for our 
transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities, 
if it was not to save us from being thus 
wounded and bruised ? It is worthy of re- 
mark, that in this interesting chapter, Christ 
is represented as suffering for us by divine 
appointment, and under the divine sanction : 
" the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of 
us all" — " When thou shalt make his soul 
an offering for sin." Now, if it was not 
the divine purpose to save us from the pun- 
ishment our sins deserve, by laying our ini- 
quities on Jesus Christ, and making his soul 
an o&ering for sin ; if after all this, we must 
inevitably suffer all that our sins deserve, 
then what Christ suffered for us, must have 
been over and above what justice requires, 
and, consequently, unjust and cruel. 

Rom. iv. 25 : " Who was delivered for our 
offences, and raised again for our justifica- 
tion." Here, the Apostle clearly asserts 
Christ's death for sinners, and their deliver- 
ance or salvation from the guilt of sin by 
his resurrection ; i. e. he died to atone for 
our sins, and rose again to intercede for us, 
by pleading the merits of his death ; we, 
therefore, may be justified, i. e. saved from 
the guilt, and consequently, the punishment 
of sin, through his resurrection. 

1 Cor. XV. 3 : " For I delivered unto you 
first of all, that which I also received, how 
that Christ died for our sins according to 
the Scriptures." 

Several points in this text, deserve notice. 



1. The substance of the ■ Apostle's decla- 
ration is, " Christ died for our sins." 

2. This doctrine of the vicarious death of 
Christ, he declares, he received : " I deliv- 
ered unto you that which I also received." 
It was not a thought of his own, nor the 
invention of man, but he received it from 
God who called him to preach Christ cru- 
cified. 

3. This doctrine of Chris fs death for our 
sins, he says, he " delivered unto them first 
of all," showing that he considered the doc- 
trine of Christ's vicarious death, one of the 
first principles of the Gospel, of the first 
importance, on which the sinner's hope rests, 
and upon which the whole Gospel fabric is 
reared. 

4. This doctrine of Christ's death for our 
sins, he declares, is " according to Sthe crip- 
tures." 

Let it be understood, that by the Scrip- 
tures here, the Old Testament only can be 
intended, and what has been said on this 
subject, reasoning from the law and the pro- 
phets, is confirmed. As the apostle declares 
that Christ's death for our sins was accord- 
ing to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, 
it follows that the sin offerings made under 
the law, were representations of his death, 
and pointed him out as suffering for sinners ; 
and that the prophet, in foretelling his pas- 
sion, referred to the same object of his death, 
saying, " When thou shalt make his soul an 
offering for sin he shall see his seed." 

2 Cor. V. 21 : " For he hath made him to 
be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might 
be made the righteousness of God in him." 
On this text, it may be remarked, 

1. By Christ's being made sin for us, we 
are to understand that he was made a sin 
offering for us, or an offering for our sins. 

2. The design of this was that we might 
be made the righteousness of God in him, 
by which we understand, being made the 
partakers of God's justifying and renewing 
grace, whereby we are rendered righteous. 
This is termed the righteousness of God, 
because the pardon of sin on the ground of 
the sin offering of Christ, whereby we are 



1 40 THE ATONEMENT. 

justified from sins that are past, is the pre- 
rogative and act of God, and because the 
internal work of renewing the heart and 
sanctifying the soul, whereby we are ren- 
dered righteous in heart and life, is the work 
of God's Holy Spirit. 

1 Peter ii. 24, 25 : " Who his own self 
bare our sins, in his own body, on the tree, 
by whose stripes ye are healed ; for ye were 
as sheep going astray." This is almost a 
literal quotation from the prophet, whose 
words we have already considered, and goes 
farther to show that we are sustained by the 
New Testament writers, in our application 
of the prophet's language to the death of 
Christ as a sacrifice for sin. The apostle 
here is so plain and precise that it seems 
hardly possible to misunderstand or misap- 
ply his language, 

1. He states that Christ bore our sins. 

2. To show beyond all dispute, that he 
bore them literally, and not in some sym- 
bolical or allegorical manner, he notes the 
m.auner in which he bore them, in three ^av- 
ticulars. 

First, he bore them "his own self." 
Secondly, he bore them " in his own body." 
Thirdly, he bore them " on the tree," i. e. 
on the cross. 

3. Lest some sceptic should still question 
the meritorious character of Christ's suffer- 
ings, the apostle adds, " by his stripes ye are 
healed." 

1 Peter iii. 18 : " For Christ also hath 
once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, 
that he might bring us to God, being put 
to death in the flesh, but quickened by the 
spirit." 

1. This text declares that Christ suffered 
for sins. 

2. It was not his own sins for which he 
suffered, for he was without sin, but he suf- 
fered " the just for the unjust," his sufferings 
were therefore vicarious. 

3. The object of his sufferings was that 
he might bring us to God ; his sufferings, 
therefore, must have been necessary in order 
to our salvation. 

4. To show that the salvation of sinners 



[book II. 



depends upon the merits of Christ's death, 
and not upon the influence of his example 
and truth, revealed in his gospel aside from 
his death, the apostle refers the whole to 
his passion : " He suffered for sin, that ho 
might bring us to God, being put to death 
in thejiesh." 

Heb. ix. 28 : " So Christ was once offered 
to bear the sins of many." Chapter ii. 9 : 
" But we see Jesus," " that he by the grace 
of God should taste death for every man." 
This class of texts might be multiplied to 
almost any extent, but it is unnecessary to 
add, enough has been produced to show, be- 
yond dispute, that Christ did suffer for sin- 
ners, and that he suffered and died by divine 
appointment on the part of the Father, and 
as a free-will offering on his part. The death 
of Christ then, must have been an atone- 
ment for sinners, essential to their salvation, 
or it would never have been voluntarily en- 
dured by himself or sanctioned by the Fa- 
ther. 

If Christ did not die to save men 
from the guilt and punishment of sin, what 
was the object of his death, and Avherein are 
we benefitted by his passion, any farther than 
we might have been by his mission, had he 
appeared on earth, lived, preached, estab- 
lished a system of religious truth, appointed 
others to preach it after him, and retired to 
his native clime without heaving a sigh, ut- 
tering a groan, or shedding a drop of blood ? 
If his death was not an atonement for sin, 
essential to our salvation, we can conceive 
of no benefit arising from his death, which 
we might not have enjoyed without it. AVhen 
it has been asked for what purpose Christ 
suffered and died, if it was not to make an 
atonement for sin, our opponents have an- 
swered that he suffered to furnish an ex- 
pression of the Father's love to a lost world. 
To this it is replied, that if the death of 
Christ was not an atonement for sin, essen- 
tial in order to our salvation, it was no ex- 
pression of God's love to us, but an expres- 
sion of cruelty towards his beloved Son, in 
whom he declares liimself well pleased. 
Suppose, as the Sociuian view of the atone- 



CHAP. VI.] 



THE ATONEMENT. 



141 



ment does, that God was perfectly reconciled 
to us, and that nothing in his perfections or 
principles of administration, rendered it in- 
consistent for him to extend saving mercy to 
offending man, and, hence, that no offers of 
grace are now made to sinners which might 
not have been made without the death of 
Christ, and it not only strips his death of 
all that importance which is given to it in 
the Scriptures, but renders it useless and 
cruel. But it is said that the death of Christ 
was not designed to procure the favor of 
God, but to benefit the sinner, acting di- 
rectly upon his mind as an evidence of the 
divine love. 

To this it is replied, that if it were viewed 
in this light, it would not be calculated to 
produce such an effect. What is there in 
the sufferings of Christ calculated to con- 
vince us of the divine goodness, and to win 
our rebellious hearts to God, if we are as- 
sured at the same time that they were intend- 
ed to produce no other happy effect, farther 
than to convince us that God is good and 
that he loves us ? Look at the picture as 
this view presents it. God informs rebel- 
lious man that he is good, that he loves them, 
and that he is able and willing to save them ; 
but incredulous man will not believe that 
God is love. The Father of mercies adds, 
hear, ye unbelieving children, and I will con- 
vince you that my very nature is love, and 
that my bowels yearn over the miseries of 
a fallen world ; I have one only well belov- 
ed son, and to convince you that I am all 
goodness, I will send him into the world, 
and he shall suffer and die before your eyes. 
He is innocent, he is neither guilty of crime 
nor worthy of pangs ; nor is his death nec- 
essary in order to render it consistent for 
me to save you, but is only necessary to 
convince you of my tender love. Look 
now on his pangs, hear him cry out under 
the most excrutiating tortures, and see him 
sweat great drops of blood, and then ask 
your unrelenting hearts, if I am not pure 
nnmingled love, who can inflict such suffer- 
ings on the innocent, merely to convince the 
guilty and hell deserving of my goodness 



towards them. "What soul would not turn 
away with horror, frightened to despair, at 
such an exhibition of divine love, or rather 
divine wrath ? 



SECTION VIII. 

Objections to the Doctrine of the Atonement, 
Answered. 

I. It has been objected to the doctrine 
of a vicarious atonement, that it would be 
unjust for the innocent to suffer in the place 
of the guilty. 
To this objection it is replied : 
1. To suffer, endure privation, or incon- 
venience for the good of others, is uniformly 
represented as virtuous and benevolent. '• I 
could wish," said Paul, " that myself were 
accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my 
kinsmen, according to the flesh." Rom. ix. 
3 : " I am the good shepherd : the good 
shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." John 
X. 11 : "To endure a smaller evil to save 
others from a greater one, or to secure to 
them a greater good, is certainly an act of 
benevolence ; it is benevolence in the light 
of the Bible, it is benevolence in the sight 
of the world ; such conduct has been made 
the subject of eulogy by orators, and the 
matter of song by bards. It is worthy of 
remark, that it is not pretended that Christ 
suffered as much in quantity as sinners would 
have suffered, through coming ages, had 
they been left unredeemed ; his sufferings, 
therefore, save men from a greater amount 
of evil than he endured for them, while, on 
the other hand, it brings to them a greater 
amount of good than he had to forego in 
accomplishing the work of their redemption. 
Thus, it is clear, that to suffer for others, 
under the circumstances in which Christ 
suffered, is an act of virtue and benevolence, 
unless it can be shown that such sufferings 
are an infringement upon the prior claims 
of a superior. When it can be shown that 
by such sufferings, some just claim, some 
paramount obligation is violated, then, and 



142 



THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



not till then, will such sufferings appear un 
just. Now, it is maintained that this is not 
ti'ue of the offering which Jesus Christ made 
of himself, once for all ; no prior claim or 
law, by which the act could be determined 
an unjust one, was violated. Let it be par- 
ticularly noted, that Jesus Christ suffered 
voluntarily on his own part, and in accord 
ance with the will of the Father at the same 
time. Nothing is more clear than that the 
Father and the Son both willed the offering 
which Christ made " of himself once for 
all." 

This being understood, if, as those 
who hold the doctrine of vicarious atone- 
ment believe, Christ was God as well as 
man, equal with the Father, he must have 
been the source of all law, so that no law 
• could be of higher authority, than that of 
his own will ; hence, as he willed to suffer, 
he suffered under the highest authority, a,nd, 
therefore, the act cannot be determined to 
be unjust by a paramount law. But if, as 
Socinians contend, Christ was a mere crea- 
ted being, bound by the law of his Creator 
then, there could be nothing unjust in the 
offering, since, he suffered in accordance with 
the will of the Father, the act being sanc- 
tioned by the highest authority in the uni 
verse, while he voluntarily suffered on his own 
part, for the good of others, delivering them 
from a greater evil than he endured, and 
bringing to them a greater amount of good 
than he sacrificed ; which has been shown 
to be an act of virtue and benevolence, pro- 
vided no law or prior claim is thereby viola- 
ted. Yiew the subject in this light, and the 
charge of injustice, on the doctrine of vica- 
rious atonement, disappears. 

2. While the vicarious atonement is thus 
vindicated from the charge of injustice, the 
charge returns upon those who have origina- 
ted it, with a force beyond the power of their 
theory to resist. 

That Jesus Christ did suffer and die vol- 
untarily, and at the same time in accord- 
ance with the will of the Father, cannot be 
denied. This has been sufficiently shown in 
the preceding arguments, to which may be 



added, John x. 17, 18 : " Therefore doth my 
father love me, because I lay down my life 
for the sheep, that I might take it again. 
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down 
of myself : I have power to lay it down, 
and I have power to take it again : this 
commandment have I received of my Fath- 
er." It is clear then, that Christ did lay 
down his own life, in which he had the sanc- 
tion of the Father. Now, suppose the act 
was unjust, on the supposition that his death 
was vicarious, i. e. in the place of the sin- 
ner's death, we ask in what respect it would 
be less unjust, on the supposition that it was 
not vicarious ? Is it unjust for Christ to 
die to redeem the world, by giving his life 
a ransom for the forfeited lives of sinners, 
while it is just for him to die under circum- 
stances in every respect similar, with the 
exception that his death is not a ransom for 
the lives of sinners ? If Christ suffered vi- 
cariously for sinners, his death contemplated 
a greater amount of good, than it could 
have done had he died merely as a martyr 
for the truth ; hence, if our opponents pre- 
fer the charge of injustice against the doc- 
trine of Christ's vicarious death, they ag- 
gravate the circumstance of injustice in 
proportion as they" lessen the amount of good 
to be secured by it, by denying its atoning 
merits. 

II. It has sometimes been objected to the 
doctrine of the vicarious sufferings and 
death of Christ, that if Christ made a full 
atonement for the sinner, as his substitute, 
then the sinner cannot be held responsible 
to the law, his substitute having satisfied its 
claims. This ground has been taken by An- 
tinomian Limitarians, to prove the absurdity 
of a general atonement, and by Universal- 
ists to prove that universal salvation must 
follow from a universal atonement ; both of 
which positions are equally absurd. 

The fallacy of this argument appears to 
consist in blending the atonement itself with 
the conditional benefits which flow from it ; 
or, in overlooking the conditions on which 
men, as moral agents, are made the parta- 
kers of the benefits of the atonement. The 



CHAP. VI.] 



THE ATONEMENT. 



143 



atonement was unconditionally made ; i. e. 
no condition was required of man, in order 
that the atonement might be made, for when 
we consider man as a fallen being, it is clear 
that the atonement must first be made, and 
man become a partaker of its benefits to 
some extent, before he can be capable of 
complying with any condition ; it must, 
therefore, appear that the atonement is not 
only unconditional, but that some of its bene- 
fits must be unconditional also. 

The main point upon which this reply 
rests, is the facts that the full and final ben- 
efits of the atonement are conditionally of- 
fered in the gospel. If this point can be 
sustained, the objection vanishes. The ques- 
tion is, then, whether it be a part of the di- 
vine plan of human redemption, that the 
atonement should be so applied as to deliver 
sinners from all obligation, or whether it 
was intended to render the forgiveness and 
salvation of sinners consistent with the best 
interest of the moral system, on certain con- 
ditions to be complied with on the part of 
the sinner himself ? If our opponents will 
prove that it was the intention of Jesus 
Christ, in dying for man, to deliver him from 
all obligation, satisfying the claims of the 
law fully and unconditionally, and that God 
has accepted the atonement in this full sense 
without the reserve of a single condition to 
be complied with on the part of man, we 
shall then be obliged to yield to the force of 
the objection under consideration, and take 
ground with the high toned Antinomian Lim 
itariaus, and deny that the atonement was 
made for all men ; or else, admitting the 
universality of the atonement, strike hands 
with the Universalists, and say that all will 
and must be saved. On the other hand, if 
it can be proved that it was not the design 
of the Father, in the gift of his Son to die 
for us, and that it was not the design oi" Je- 
sus Christ, in giving himself for us, to de- 
liver us from all moral obligation, nor yet, 
that the benefits of the atonement should 
be unconditionally applied to us, in their full 
extent ; that the atonement was never in- 
tended to deliver us from our obligation to 



obey God, but only from the penalty of the 
law after it has been tra.nsgressed, and from 
this only on certain conditions to be com- 
plied with on the part of the sinner him- 
self : then, it must follow that the objection 
is unfounded, that the sinner is held respon- 
sible to the divine law, though Christ has 
died as his substitute, and that he is liable 
to the divine penalty, until he complies with 
the conditions of the gospel, on which sal- 
vation is offered. To suppose to the con- 
trary, after the above positions shall have 
been established, must be the same as to 
assert that the atonement must, of necessity, 
produce an effect which was never intended 
by God in the gift of his Son, or by Jesus 
Christ in the offering of himself, which is 
^^^nity in the extreme. Must an atonement, 
if made, do more than its author intended 
it should ? If an atonement has been made, 
which God intended should save men from 
the penalty of a violated law, only on cer- 
tain conditions, is it logical or theological 
to infer, that because such an atonement has 
been made, it must therefore save men from 
all obligation to obey the law, and from all 
liability to punishment, without reference to 
any conditions ? If God has given his Son 
to make an atonement, whereby we may be 
saved on certain conditions, is it just, true, 
or modest, for us to start up and assert that 
he must, therefore, save us irrespective of 
all conditions ? 

The question now being fairly stated, the 
words of the Master himself shall decide it. 

John iii. 16 : " For God so loved the 
world that he gave his only begotten Son, 
that whosoever believeth in him should not 
perish, but have everlasting life." If the 
Saviour understood his own mission, this 
text must be conclusive in proof of a con- 
ditional application of the atonement. In- 
deed, we think it clearly asserts the doc- 
trine of the atonement, while it guards it 
from abuse on either hand. 

1. The text asserts that God was movea 
by love to the world, in the gift of his Son. 
Now as by the world, in this text, nothing 
can be meant less than the whole human 



114 



THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



family, the atouement is shown to be uni- 
versal, in opositiou to Limitarianism. 

2. As the object of this divine gift was 
the salvation of such only as believe ; or, in 
other words, as the design of God in giving 
his Son was to snyemenonly through faith, 
salvation is proved to be conditional ; from 
which it appears that the sinner's entire re- 
lease from the claims of the law, does not 
follow from a universal atonement. The 
expression, " that whosoever believeth in 
him should not perish, but have everlasting 
life," clearly supposes that to perish is the 
opposite of everlasting life, so that they can- 
not both take effect in the same subject. It 
also supposes that the sinner may believe or 
he may. not ; or that ,some sinners may be- 
lieve and have everlasting life, and that oth- 
ers may not believe, and perish. It is clear 
then, that God did not intend that the 
atonement should deliver men from all 
moral obligation, or save them from the 
penalty of the law, so far as adult sinners 
are concerned, only on condition of faith in 
Jesus Christ, by whom the atonement was 
made ; therefore, to urge such consequen- 
ces as necessarily following from the doc- 
trine of atonement, is no less than an at- 
tempt to wrest the atonement from the 
simple object for which God intended it, 
and apply it to other purposes never con- 
templated by its divine author, and foreign 
to the divine plan of human redemption ; 
and we think that an objection founded in 
such arrogance and profanity, as this is 
proved to be, may be dismissed without 
other consideration. 

III. It has been objected to the doctrine 
of atonement, that it excludes the benevo- 
lence of God from the plan of salvation ; 
for, say objectors, if God required a full 
atonement, and if such atonement was made 
by Jesus Christ, then, justice must be satis- 
fied and there can be no room for the exer- 
cise of benevolence on the part of the Fa- 
ther. 

To this objection it may be replied, 

1. That God did not require an atone- 
ment through any want of love to his fallen 



creatures, but because it was inconsistent 
with his perfections, and the principles of 
his moral government, to save offenders 
without an atonement. 

2. It being inconsistent with the perfec- 
tions of God, to save sinners without an 
atonement, as has been shown in the re- 
marks on the necessity of an atonement, 
God's benevolence or love to his fallen crea- 
tures, led him to devise the plan of salvation 
through the gift of his Son, our atoning 
sacrifice ; " for God so loved the world, that 
he gave his only begotten Son, that whoso- 
ever believeth in him should not perish, but 
have everlasting life." It is seen then, that 
the doctrine of atonement is so far from ex- 
cluding the divine benevolence from the 
plan of human salvation, that the atonement 
itself is the brightest display of divine love 
that ever dazzled the visions of angels or 
men. 

Here let this protracted chapter bo 
closed, under the settled conviction, that as 
Christians we can never give up the atone- 
ment. What, renounce the atonement, 
which has already washed away the guilt oi 
sin and given us peace with God through 
faith in our Lord Jesus Christ — renounce 
the efficacy of the blood of the cross, the 
cleansing power of which we have already 
felt in our souls by blessed experience — ^re- 
nounce the atonement, trusting in which 
holy Martyrs shouted in the flames — re- 
nounce the atonement, which has dispelled 
the horrors of death, and shed the light of 
eternity on the night of the grave — ^re- 
nounce the atonement, while redeemed spir- 
its which have already gained the blest 
shore, ascribe their salvation to the blood 
of the Lamb, as they surround the throne 
with songs of deliverance, saying, '• Unto 
him that loved us and hath washed us from 
our sins in his own blood, be glory and do- 
minion forever and ever : thou art worthy, 
for thou wast slain, and hast' redeemed us 
to God by thy blood" — No, heaven forbid 
it ! Holy Ghost inspire us, and the atone- 
ment shall be our rallying point forever. 



CHAP. YII.] 



THE EXTENT OP THE ATONEMENT. 



145 



CHAPTER YII. 

THE EXTENT OP THE ATONEMENT ITS BEN- 
EFITS ARE AVAILABLE TO ALL MEN. 



SECTION I. 

The Atonement was Made for Universal 
Humanity. 

The denial that Christ died for all, is 
now an uncommon thing to be heard from 
an American pulpit, yet, a century has not 
elapsed, since it was the prevailing doctrine 
with a large portion of professed Christians. 
But while Limitarianism has disappeared 
from the popular surface of the religious 
community, it still finds a lurking place 
with a few ministers and a few congrega 
tions, who have resisted the rising tide of 
the opposite opinion, and it may be found 
in many doctrinal publications, not yet out 
of print. Under these circumstances it ap- 
pears proper, in a work like this, to demon- 
strate the great truth, that Christ died for 
universal humanity. " The confession of 
Faith of the Presbyterian Church in the 
United States of America," most clearly 
contains the doctrine that Christ died for 
only a part of the human family. 

It is asserted that, " some men and angels are 
predestinated unto everlasting life, and oth 
ers foreordained to everlasting death." Of 
those who are ordained to life, it is said, 
" Wherefore they who are elected, being 
fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ 
Neither are any others redeemed by Christ, 
but the elect only." Of the non-elect it is 
said, " The rest of mankind God was pleased 
to pass by." 

"■ The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedi- 
ence and sacrifice of himself, wliich he 
through the eternal spirit once oflPered up 
unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of 
his Father, and purchased, not only recon- 
ciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in 
the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom 
the Father hath given unto him." This 
10 



certainly implies that Christ has satisfied 
the justice of his Father, and purchased an 
everlasting inheritance for none but the 
elect, or such as will be finally saved. 

For all those for whom Christ hath 
purchased redemption, he doth certainly 
and eSectually communicate the same." 
This certainly implies that Christ has pur- 
chased redemption for only a part of man- 
kind. 

For the above extracts, see Confession, 
chap. iii. sec. 3, 6, 7, and cliap. viii. sec. 5, 
8. It is not charged that the members of 
the Presbyterian church believe this doc- 
trine, many of them do not, but it is in 
their Confession of Faith, and this fact is 
sufficient to justify an examination of the 
question. 

That Christ died for the whole human 
family, is maintained from the following con- 
siderations. 

I. It cannot 1)6 made to appear that any 
atonement could be made on the plan of 
Christ's oSering of himself, sufficient to save 
one sinner, or any portion of sinners, which 
would not be sufficient to save the whole 
human family on the same conditions that 
it could save a part. The law of God was 
violated by universal humanity in the per- 
son of Adam, for he was the whole of hu- 
manity when he committed the ofience by 
which "judgment came upon all men to 
condemnation." With judgment resting 
upon all men to condemnation, on account 
of Adam's sin, none of the race could be 
saved until that one sin was atoned, and 
any atonement which would so expiate that 
one sin, as to remove the condemnation 
of any part, would equally remove it from 
all upon whom it came by that one ofience. 
No sinner could be saved without an atone- 
ment which fully expiated Adam's sin, and 
any atonement which should fully expiate 
Adam's sin, would necessarily reach all 
mankind, for all were involved by that sin. 
The ofience was one which reached to all 
mankind, and the expiation of that one 
offence, must necessarily reach to all man- 
kind. 



146 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



Nor, can it be made to appear that an 
atonement of sufficient merit to absolve one 
sinner, would not be sufficient to absplve a 
whole world of sinners. The entire claim 
of the law of God, its entire penalty, and 
every principle, and all the integrity and 
honor of the divine government, are in- 
volved in the salvation of one sinner, and 
when these are all met and secured by an 
atonement, the way must be open for the 
salvation of universal humanity, upon the 
same terms that any part can be saved. 

II. The Scriptures nowhere assert that 
Christ did not die for all men. No one will 
pretend that there is one text which clearly 
and distinctly denies that Christ died for 
every member of the human family. This 
consideration, though less conclusive than 
some other arguments which shall soon be 
spread before the reader, possesses great 
force. The point in issue is a vital one, 
next to the fact that Christ died for sinners, 
in point of importance, is the question, 
whether he died for all or only a j)art. If 
he died for only a part, it is hardly possible, 
that amid all the multiplied forms in which 
the death of Christ for sinners is set forth, 
it should never once be asserted that he did 
not die for all, or that he died for only a 
part. If there was not one text which as- 
serts that Christ died for all, the advocates 
of a limited atonement, would consider it 
conclusive against a universal atonement, 
but it would be no more conclusive than is 
the fact, that no text asserts Christ did not 

■ die for all men, is in proof that his death 
was for all. It is not conceivable, that the 
Scriptures should be silent on so important 

. a point, and the fact that they, in various 
forms of speech, assert that he died for all 

■ men, renders the fact that not one text as- 
serts that he did not die for all, conclusive 
. against the doctrine of a limited atonement. 

III. The Scriptures affirm most specifi- 
cally and positively, that Christ died for all 
men. But little is necessary, more than to 
quote a number of the texts, which, in va- 
rious forms of speech, declare that Christ 
died for the whole human family. 



John i. 29 : " Behold the Lamb of God, 
that taketh away the sin of the world." 

Chap. iii. 17 : " God sent not his Son into 
the world to condemn the world, but that 
the world through him might be saved." 

Chap. iv. 42 : " This is indeed the Christ, 
the Saviour of the world." 

In these texts, the term world can mean 
nothing less than universal humanity. 

Rom. V. 18 : "As by the offence of one, 
judgment came upon all men to condemna- 
tion, even so by the rigliteousness of one, 
the free gift came upon all men unto justifii- 
cation of life." 

2 Cor. V. 14 : " We thus judge, if one 
died for all, then were all dead." Yerse 15 : 
" And that he died for all." 

1 Tim. ii. 6 : " Who gave himself a ran- 
som for all." 

Heb. ii. 9 : " That he, by the grace of 
God, should taste death for every man." 

1 Jon ii. 2 : " He is the propitiation for 
our sins : and not for ours only, but also for 
the sins of the whole world." 

These Scriptures make the matter as 
plain as words could make it. If they do 
not teach that Christ died for all men, no 
form of words could teach it, for no change 
of words, or different arrangement of words 
could make it plainer or stronger. 

lY. The gospel proceeds to invite all, and 
to offer salvation to all, upon the supposi- 
tion that provision has been made for all, 
which cannot be trae, if Christ did not die 
for all. 

Isa. xlv. 22 : " Look unto me and be ye 
saved, all the ends of the earth." 

Chap. Iv. 1. : " Ho every one that thirst- 
eth, come ye to the waters." 

Matt. xi. 28 : " Come unto me, all ye 
that labor and are heavy laden, and I will 
give you rest." 

John vii. 37 : " Jesus stood and cried, 
saying, if any man thirst, let him come unto 
rae and drink." 

Mark xvi. 15 :" Go ye into all the world, 
and preach the gospel to every creature." 

Rom. i. 16 :" For I am not ashamed of the 
Gospel of Christ : for it is the power of 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



147 



God unto salvation, to every one that be- 
lieveth." 

2 Cor. V. 19, 20 : " To wit, that God was 
in Christ, reconciling the world unto him- 
self, not imputing their trespasses unto them, 
and hath committed unto us the word of 
reconciliation. Now then, we are embassa- 
dors for Christ, as though God did beseech 
you by us : we pray you in Christ's stead, be 
ye reconciled to God." 

Col . i. 28 : " Whom we preach, warning 
every man and teaching every man in all 
wisdom, that we may present every man 
perfect in Christ Jesus." 

Rev. iii. 20 : " Behold I stand at the 
door and knock, if any man hear my voice 
and will open the door, I will come in unto 
him, and sup with him, and he with me." 

Chap. xxii. 17: "The Spirit and the 
bride say, come, and let him that heareth 
say, come. And let him that is athirst come ; 
and whosoever will, let him take the water 
of life freely." 

Such declarations, commissions, invita- 
tions, ana offers of salvation, are irreconcil- 
able with the assumption that Christ has 
not made an atonement for all men, which 
is sufficient to save all, if they would com- 
ply with the conditions upon which salva- 
tion is offered. 

Y. Tliei Scriptures teach that Christ died 
for such as are, or may be lost. If this ar- 
gument can be sustained, it must be conclu- 
sive, for if one for whom Christ died perish- 
es, the whole ground of the assumption that 
he died for only a part is removed, and it 
will follow that he died for all that perish, 
and consequently for all mankind. A few 
decisive texts follow. 

Rom. xiv. 15 : " Destroy not him with 
thy meat, for whom Christ died." 

1 Cor.viii. 11 : " And through thy knowl- 
edge shall thy weak brother perish, for whom 
Christ died?" 

These texts teach beyond a doubt, that 
it is possible for those to perish for whom 
Christ died. 

2 Cor. ii. 15, 16 : " For we are unto God 
a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are 



saved, and in them that perish : to the one 
we are the savor of death unto death ; and 
to the other the savor of life unto life." It 
is not possible that a Gospel minister sliould 
be a savor of death unto death, in them, that 
perish, only upon the assumption that Christ 
died for them, and that they perish, not be- 
cause he did not die for them, but because they 
reject the offer of salvation through him. 

2 Cor. iv. 3, 4 : " But if our gospel be 
hid, it is hid to them that are lost : in whom 
the God of this world hath bhnded the 
minds of them that believe not, lest the light 
of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is 
the image of God, should shine unto them." 

If Christ never died for them, the light 
of the glorious Gospel of Christ, never could 
savingly shine unto them, and the God of 
this world, who blinded their minds, lest it 
should shine unto them, performed a foolish 
and unnecessary work. Whatever may be 
the fact in the case, it is clear from this, that 
the devil believes that Christ died for such 
as perish, and that they might believe in him 
and be saved, for he would never blind their 
minds lest they should, were it not possible 
in his view. 

Heb. X. 26-29 : " For if we sin wilfully, 
after that we have received the knowledge 
of the truth, there remaineth no more sac- 
rifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking 
for of judgment and fiery indignation, which 
shall devour the adversary. He that des- 
pised Moses' laAv, died without mercy un- 
der two or three witnesses : of how much 
sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be 
thought worthy, who hath trodden under 
foot the Son of God, and hath counted the 
blood of the covenant, wherewith he was 
sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done 
despite unto the Spirit of Grace." Com- 
mon sense will never deny that Christ must 
have died for the persons treated of in this 
text, and that they are described as in dan- 
ger of perishing, or of coming short of sal. 
vation, and the conclusion is certain, that 
Christ died for such as do or may perish. 

2 Peter ii. 1 : " But there were false 
prophets also among the people, even as 



148 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



there shall be false teachers among you, who 
privily bring in damnable heresies, even de- 
nying the Lord that bought them, and bring 
npon themselves swift destruction." 

These persons deny the Lord that bought 
them, they were therefore bought, Christ 
died for them ; and they bring upon them- 
selves swift destruction, it is therefore cer- 
tain that Christ died for such as perish, and 
the conclusion is, that he died for all men. 

YI. The Scriptures demand faith of all 
men, and make their unbelief a ground of 
their condemnation, which they could not 
do, if Christ did not die for all. 

Mark xvi. 16 : '■' He that believeth and is 
baptized, shall be saved ; but he that be- 
lieveth not, shall be damned." 

. John iii. 18 : " He that believeth in him is 
not condemned : but he that believeth not is 
condemned already, because he hath not be- 
lieved in the name of the only begotten Son 
of Grod." Yerse 36 : " He that believeth on 
the Son, hath everlasting life : and he that 
believeth not on the Sou, shall not see life." 

John vi. 29 : " This is the work of God, 
that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." 

John viii. 24 : " If ye believe not that I 
am he, ye shall die in your sins." 

It is clear then, that the Gospel requires 
faith of all men, and that sinners are con- 
demned for not believing in Christ. Faith 
includes both credence and trust. Th&faith 
which a sinner is required to exercise in 
Christ, includes a belief that Christ died for 
Mm. But God could not require sinners to 
believe that Christ died for them, if he did 
not die for them, for that would be to re- 
quire them to believe a falsehood. And as 
sinners are condemned for not believing in 
Christ, if he did not die for them, they are 
condemned for not believing a lie. 

YII. The Scriptures charge upon sinners 
their destruction, as a consequence of their 
own rejection of Christ, which could not be 
true, if Christ did not die for them. 

Matt, xxiii. 37 : " How often would I 
Lave gathered thy children together, even 
as a hen gathereth her chickens under her 
wings, and ye would not." 



Luke vii. 30 : " The Pharisees and law- 
yers rejected the counsel of God against 
themselves." 

John v. 38, 40 : " Te have not his word 
abiding in you ; for whom he hath sent, him 
ye believe not. And ye will not come unto 
me that ye might have life." 

Acts xiii. 46 : " It was necessary that the 
word of God should first have been spoken 
to you ; but seeing ye put it from you, and 
judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting 
life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." 

Heb. xii. 25 : " See that ye refuse not 
him that speaketh. For if they escaped 
not who refused him that spake on earth, 
much more shall not we escape, if we turn 
away from him that speaketh from heaven." 

From the above texts it is perfectly clear 
that sinners are represented as perishing, on 
account of rejecting Christ, and that the 
fault is their own. This could not be, if he 
did not die for them. If he did not atone 
for their sins, and if they might not avail 
themselves of eternal life in him, he must 
have uttered words of deceit when he said, 
" ye will not come unto me that ye might 
have life." It is not claimed that all the 
arguments have been advanced, by which it 
might be proved that Christ died for uni- 
versal humanity, but enough has been said 
to settle this question. But some, who ad- 
mit that Christ died for all men, that the 
atonement is universal, hold that it is nec- 
essarily restricted in its application, by set- 
tled principles of the divine government. 
These supposed principles must be made the 
subjects of inquiry in future sections. 

SECTION li. 

The Atonement is not limited in its Appli- 
cation, by any supposed Decree of Predes- 
tination. 

The doctrine of God's supposed decree 
of foreordination, and predestination, is sta- 
ted in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, 
Chap. iii. as follows : 

" God from all eternity did, by the most 



CHAP. YIL] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



149 



wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely 
and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes 
to pass ; yet so as thereby neither is God 
the author of sin, nor is violence offered to 
the will of the creature, nor is the liberty 
or contingency of second causes taken away, 
but rather established." 

" Although God knows what may or can 
come to pass upon all supposed conditions, 
yet hath he not decreed anything because 
he foresaw it as future, or as that which 
would come to pass upon such conditions." 

It is frankly admitted, if the doctrine of 
God's eternal decree of foreordination, in- 
cluding everything which comes to pass, as 
stated above be true, the application of the 
atonement must be limited by such decree. 
Its application must be fixed and unaltera- 
ble, whether it be applied to all men, or 
only to an elect few. But is the doctrine 
true? Has God, from all eternity, un- 
changeably ordained whatsoever comes to 
pass ? This is denied, and in support of 
this denial, the following considerations are 
offered : 

I. There is not sufficient proof of the 
doctrine to support a conclusion so grave 
and momentous. If it be a truth, it is a 
momentous truth, a fundamental truth, to 
which every other truth sustains a relation, 
similar to that which all the links of a chain 
sustain to the first link, which draws all the 
parts after it. If we adopt it, all our views 
of theology must be modified and controlled 
by it. Such a truth, if it be a truth, must 
be a matter of direct and clear revelation. 
It cannot be supposed that, in making a 
revelation of his will, God has left so im- 
portant and leading a truth to be establish- 
ed by far-fetched inferences, by doubtful 
philosophical deductions, or by metaphysi- 
cal disquisitions, too obscure for the com- 
prehension of common minds. If it be a 
truth, it must be a revealed truth ; and if it 
be a revealed truth, it must be clearly re- 
vealed, and distinctly marked upon the in- 
spired page. But is it so ? Where is it 
affirmed ? Which of the inspired penmen 
have declared it ? What one text asserts 



it ? A glance at the proof texts cited in 
connection with the article as quoted above, 
is sufficient to show that a famine reigns in 
the land of evidence. It is fair to conclude 
that the General Assembly, in publishing 
such a doctrine to the world with proof 
texts, cited the most direct and conclusive 
texts they could find in the Scriptures. 
They have cited four in order, as follows : 

Eph. i. 11 : "In whom also we have ob- 
tained an inheritance, being predestinated 
according to the purpose of him who worketh 
all things after the counsel of his own will." 
Whatever else this text may teach, it does 
not affirm that " God, from all eternity, or- 
dained whatsoever comes to pass." 

We, stands opposed to ye, in verse 13 : 
"We have obtained an inheritance — who 
first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also 
trusted, after that ye heard the word of 
truth." The distinction is between the Jews 
and Gentiles. The first converts were Jews, 
who trusted in Christ before the gospel was 
preached to the Gentiles. This makes the 
apostle's distinction between we and ye, 
plain. The 10th verse speaks of the forma- 
tion of the one gospel church out of both 
Jews and Gentiles, and this was to be done 
by gathering both together in Christ, and 
it was "according to his good pleasure 
which he hath purposed in himself," as 
stated in verse 9. This is the thing God 
has predestinated ; this is God's predeter- 
mined plan of grace and salvation ; he de- 
termined to bring both Jews and Gentiles 
to salvation by Jesus Christ. It is admitted 
that this was foreordained, decreed and pre- 
destinated ; but how it proves that God or- 
dained all things whatsoever comes to pass, 
including all the actions of v/icked men and 
devils, remains yet to be shown. 

But it may be presumed that the proof is 
supposed to be contained in the clause which 
asserts, that God " worketh all things after 
the counsel of his own will." This, how- 
ever, does not prove the point, for it comes 
far short of being equivalent to the state- 
ment, that " God ordained all things whatso- 
ever comes to pass." The apostle is speak- 



150 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II 



ing of the great plan of human redemption 
and of this plan he affirms, that God work- 
eth all things according to the counsel of 
his own will, and no one can doubt that 
God has thus worked and effectuated that 
plan. 

But should it be insisted that the ex- 
pression, "all things," is too comprehensive 
to be limited to the plan of redemption, it 
may be admitted to comprehend everything 
that God works. God works all that he 
works after the counsel of his own will, but 
God does not work the wicked actions of 
men and devils. To say that he does, would 
be to say, that God works a violation of his 
own will, in opposition to himself, to his 
holy nature and government, for every wrong 
act is a violation of the will of God, and op- 
posed to his nature and government. 

Dr. McKnight has given the sense of the 
text with such candid simplicity, that it is 
worthy of being quoted, as follows : 

" By whom, even we Jews, have inherited 
the promises that were made to the children 
of Abraham, and of God, having been 
predestinated to the adoption of sons, not 
through obedience to the law, but through 
faith, according to the gracious purpose of 
him, who effectually accomplisheth all his 
benevolent intentions, by the most proper 
means, according to the wise determination 
of his own will." The Doctor's note on the 
verse, is as follows : 

Yerse 11. " According to the counsel of 
his own will. — The apostle makes this ob- 
servation, to convince the believing Jews 
that God will bestow on them, and on the 
believing Gentiles, the inheritance of heaven 
through faith, whether their unbelieving 
brethren are pleased or displeased there- 
with." The next proof text quoted, is Eom. 
xi. 33 : " 0, the depth of the riches, both of 
the wisdom and knowledge of God ! how 
unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways 
past finding out." It is frankly admitted, 
that God's wisdom and knowledge, are so 
rich and deep, as to render his judgments 
unsearchable, and his ways past finding out, 
and this is all that the text asserts. But it 



is so far from proving that God ordained 
everything that comes to pass, that it does 
not intimate any such thing. 

The next text is Heb. vi. 17 : "Where- 
fore God, willing more abundantly to show 
unto the heirs of promise, the immutability 
of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath." 

The counsel of God here named, was his 
purpose to send Christ, the promised seed 
of Abraham, to save sinners. This counsel 
he showed to be immutable, by confirming it 
with an oath. This, every Christian be- 
lieves, but how it proves that God ordained 
everything that transpires, has yet to be 
shown. The last text quoted, is Rom. ix. 
15, 18 : " For he saith to Moses, I will have 
mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I 
will have compassion on whom I will have 
compassion. Therefore, hath he mercy on 
whom he will have mercy, and whom he 
will, he hardeneth." 

The first of these texts asserts the simple 
fact, that God bestows his mercy and com- 
passion according to the dictates of his own 
will. Other texts show upon whom he will 
have mercy, namely, all who comply with 
the conditions of the Gospel, upon which he 
offers salvation to a guilty world ; nor will 
he alter these terms to favor this individual 
or that, or this nation or that. But how 
all this proves that God, from all eternity, 
ordained whatsoever comes to pass, must be 
very difficult to see. 

The text also asserts, in addition, that 
" whom he will he hardeneth." This only 
asserts what God does, not what he or- 
dained. It does not intimate that even 
what he does, was ordained from all eterni 
ty, much less, that whatsoever comes to 
pass was thus ordained. But whom and 
how does God harden ? Rev. Albert Barnes, 
in his notes on the text, says, " The word 
hardeneth, means only to harden in the man- 
ner specified in the case of Pharaoh. It 
does not mean to exert a positive influence, 
but to leave a sinner to his own course." In 
this sense, God hardens all sinners who re- 
sist and grieve his Holy Spirit. That God 
does sometimes give sinners over to hard- 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



151 



ness of heart, to believe a lie and be lost, 
there can be no doubt, but not until they 
have wickedly resisted God's influences put 
forth to save them. 

The proof texts cited on the particular 
point under discussion, have now all been 
examined, and it is seen that there is no 
proof sufficient to support such a momen- 
tous conclusion. It is reasonable to sup- 
pose, if there are any stronger proof texts, 
they would be cited, but the fact is, there is 
no proof in the Bible, that God, from all 
eternity, ordained whatsoever comes to pass, 
but it will be found there is much proof 
against it before this argument is closed. 

II. The doctrine that God did, from all 
eternity, ordain whatsoever comes to pass, 
would annihilate all distinction between 
right and wrong. What God has, " by the 
most wise and holy counsel of his own will, 
freely ordained," must be in harmony with 
the attributes and perfections of his own 
nature, and his own mind and will ; and 
what is in harmony with the attributes, 
perfections, mind and will of God, must be 
right, or God's nature, attributes, mind and 
will must be wrong. What God has " free- 
ly ordained," must be in harmony with him- 
self, if, therefore, God has ordained whatso- 
ever comes to pass, whatsoever comes to 
pass is in harmony with God. Eight and 
wrong never can be in harmony with each 
other, and, therefore, if God has ordained 
whatsoever comes to pass, whatsoever comes 
to pass must be right, and there is no 
wrong in the universe, or all distinction be- 
tween right and wrong is destroyed. 

Another statement of the case will bring 
tis to the same conclusion. " The most wise 
and holy counsel of God's will," must be the 
standard of right for the moral universe. 
If it is not, what is that standard of right ? 
If, then, the most wise and holy counsel of 
God's will is the standard of right for the 
moral universe, what has been ordained by 
that "most wise and holy counsel of his 
will," must be right. All that the " most 
wise and holy counsel of his will", has or- 
dained, must be in harmony with itself, and 



what is in harmony with the standard of 
right, must be right. The conclusion is, that 
if God has ordained whatsoever comes to 
pass, whatsoever comes to pass must be 
right, or the most wise and holy counsel of 
God's will must be wrong. Thus does the 
doctrine of God's eternal decree of whatso- 
ever comes to pass, annihilate all distinction 
between right and wrong. 

III. The doctrine that God did, from all 
eternity, ordain whatsoever comes to pass, 
if true, would annihilate human responsibil- 
ity. It is not possible to see how men can 
be responsible for doing what God, from all 
eternity, ordained they should do. Accord- 
ing to the doctrine, it was of God's most 
wise and holy counsel that he ordained 
whatsoever comes to pass. Can men then 
be guilty for executing God's most wise and 
holy counsel ? It is impossible. 

But it will be said, that men act as they 
do, freely, from choice. This is granted, 
but this fact is comprehended in the decree, 
if it exists. God as much ordained the 
freedom of their choice in what they do, as 
he did the acts themselves, which they per- 
form. Can men be guilty for executing 
God's most wise and holy counsel freely, or 
from choice, when that very freedom of 
choice with which they do it, is a part of 
the execution of such wise and holy counsel ? 
It is impossible. 

But, it will be said, that men act with 
evil intention. Granted, but this so called 
evil intention, is the very thing which God 
did, by his most wise and holy counsel 
ordain. The question is, can a man be 
rendered guilty for executing God's most 
wise and holy counsel, by the character of 
the intention with which he acts ? Surely 
not, any more than by the kind of act 
performed. This all-comprehensive decree 
makes the act and the intention with which 
it is performed, equal parts in the work of 
executing God's most wise and holy coun- 
sel, for which no man can be guilty. 

But, it will be said, that sinners think 
they oppose God and violate his will. To 
this it is replied. 



152 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



1. So far as it is true, it is also oue of the 
things which God ordained, if he ordained 
whatsoever comes to pass. By thinliing 
that they oppose God and violate his will, 
they only fulfill his most wise and holy 
counsel, for which no man can be guilty. 

2. It is true, that men think they oppose 
God and violate his will, only of such as do 
not believe the doctrine of God's eternal and 
universal decree of foreordination. All who 
believe that " God did, by the most wise and 
holy counsel of his will, from all eternity, 
ordain whatsoever comes to pass," cannot 
think that they oppose God or violate his 
will ; they must believe that all they do in 
thought, word and deed, and in the spirit and 
temper of their mind, is in absolute harmo- 
ny with the mind of God, and is an execu- 
tion of his most wise and holy counsel, and 
how sach can be guilty, cannot be under- 
stood. 

lY. The doctrine that God did, from all 
eternity, ordain whatsoever comes to pass, 
renders the universal consciousness and 
conscience of mankind deceptive and false. 
By consciousness, is meant that notice 
which the mind takes of its own operations, 
or that knowledge which the mind possesses 
of its own acts and states. Every mind is 
conscious of acting freely, and of being ca- 
pable of acting differently from what it does 
act, which consciousness must be deceptive 
and false, if God has unchangeably ordain- 
ed whatsoever comes to pass. If God has 
unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes 
to pass, no man can act differently from 
what he does act, but every man is con- 
scious of being capable of acting dif- 
ferently from what he does act, and 
therefore the doctrine that God has un- 
changeably ordained all that comes to pass, 
renders man's universal consciousness de- 
ceptive and false. 

The doctrine is no less false to con- 
science than it is to consciousness. With 
a knowledge that God, by the most wise 
and holy counsel of his will, ordained every 
act we perform, with all the circumstances, 
influences, and motives leading to the same, 



the conscience could never condemn the 
soul. Guilt is the result of a known viola- 
tion of what is believed to be the will of 
God ; if, therefore, all that comes to pass in 
the actions of men, is the determination of 
God's most wise and holy counsel, con- 
science plays false when it condemns the 
soul for its conduct. This difficulty will 
not be relieved, by resorting to a fancied 
distinction between God's secret and re- 
vealed will, and affirming that it is for a 
violation of the revealed will that con- 
science condemns us. If the doctrine of 
the eternal decree be known to be true, then 
it is known that God's most wise and holy 
and eternal will, is that everything should 
be done just as it comes to pass, and that 
what is assumed to be his revealed will, is 
not his will in those matters where it is vio- 
lated, and conscience could not, without 
playing false, condemn us for violating 
what is known not to be God's real will, 
when such violation is by way of doing 
what is known to be according to his most 
wise, holy, and eternal will. 

In conclusion, the fact that conscience 
does condemn us for violating God's re- 
vealed will, proves that the doctrine of a 
secret will different from it, exists only in 
the head, while its contradiction and repu- 
tation is written deeper down in the moral 
elements of the soul. 

Y. The doctrine that God did, by his 
most wise and holy counsel, ordain what- 
soever comes to pass, would represent God 
as insincere in his provisions and offers of 
grace, and in his invitations to, and ex- 
postulations with mankind. 

If such an eternal decree of foreordina- 
tion exists, comprehending everything that 
comes to pass, it is a very different thing 
from God's will as it is declared in the 
Scriptures. Then we have this admitted 
fact, admitted by all predestinarians, that 
God has an eternal and unalterable coun- 
sel, purpose and will, that everything 
should come to pass just as it does, while 
lie has given us the Bible, declaring it to 
be his will, which differs very materially 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



153 



from tilings as they actually come to pass, 
proving it not to be liis will in many things. 
How this can be reconciled with sincerity, 
has never yet been explained. It is de- 
clared that " God so loved the world that 
he gave his only begotten Son that who- 
soever believeth in him might not perish, 
but have everlasting life. For God sent 
not his Son into the world to condemn the 
world, but that the world through him, 
might be saved." John iii. 16, 17. If God 
unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes 
to pass, the world cannot be saved, how 
then could God send his Sou that the world 
might be saved ? It has every aspect of a 
false pretence. 

God by his prophet, expostulates with 
sinnei-s, saying, -' turn ye, turn ye, for why 
will ye die?" Eze. xxxiii. 11. How could 
God in sincerity thus expostulate, if he had 
unchangeably ordained their course ? Christ 
complained to the Jews, " Ye will not 
come unto me that ye might have life." 
John V. 40. What sincerity was there in 
this, if God, by an eternal decree, had deter- 
mined that they should not come to Chr'st. 

God declares through Paul, that he " will 
have all men to be saved and to come unto 
the knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim. ii. 4. 
Where is the sincerity, or even truth in 
this declaration, if God had ordained di- 
rectly the reverse of this declared will ? 

There can be no necessity for multiplying 
texts, or remarks of this character, for the 
Scriptures must appear a mere pretence 
upon their entire face, if God's most wise 
and holy counsel and will is that everything 
should come to pass just as it does. 

YI. The doctrine that God did, by his 
most wise and holy counsel, ordain whatso- 
ever comes to pass, conflicts with the clear- 
est declarations of his word, in which he 
denies having made any such universal de- 
cree of foreordination. As the decree is 
claimed to comprehend everything that 
comes to pass, if it can be shown that God 
has denied having ordained any one thing 
which has actually transpired, the decree 
will be disproved. 



Jer. xxxii. 35 : " They built the high 
places of Baal, which are in the valley of 
the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and 
their daughters to pass through the fire 
unto Molech, which I commanded them not, 
neither came it into my mind that they 
should do this abomination." 

The clause relied upon in this text, is 
that in which God asserts that it came not 
into his mind that they should do that 
abomination. By this God is not to be 
understood as denying that he foresaw, or 
foreknew that they would do it, but sim- 
ply that he designed, purposed, intended, 
decreed, or ordained that they should do it. 
Had God, from all eternity, by the most 
wise and holy counsel of his will, ordained 
that they should do that thing, he could not 
say in truth, " neither came it into my mind 
that they should do this abomination." 
Here then, is one thing which came to pass, 
which God did not ordain ; of this we are 
certain from his own absolute denial. The 
case might be safely rested on the one 
declaration of Jehovah, but God has, in va- 
rious texts denied having ordained every- 
thing that comes to pass, by the most clear 
implication. 

In all those texts in which God is repre- 
sented as changing his course of conduct 
towards nations and individuals, on account 
of a change in their conduct, there is a 
clearly implied denial of the doctrine of an 
unchangeable decree. 

Take the following texts as samples. 

Jer. xviii. 7-10 : " At what instant I 
shall speak concerning a nation and con- 
cerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to pull 
down, and to destroy it : if that nation 
against whom I have pronounced, turn 
from their evil, I will repent of the evil I 
thought to do unto them. And at what 
time I shall speak concerning a nation, and 
concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant 
it : if it do evil in my sight, that it obey 
not my voice, then I will repent of the 
good wherewith I said I would benefit 
them." 

Jonah iii. 9, 10 : " Who can tell if God 



154 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



will turn and repent, and turn away from 
his fierce anger, that we perish not. And 
God saw their works, that they turned from 
their evil way ; and God repented of the 
evil that he had said he would do unto 
them, and he did it not." 

Such texts as the above, clearly prove 
that God has not, from all eternity, un 
changeably ordained whatsoever comes to 
pass. The existence of such a decree, 
could it be demonstrated, would prove the 
record false upon its face. Again, all those 
Scriptures in which God declares a design, 
will or purpose, different from the actual 
state of things which are seen to exist, 
clearly involve a denial of the supposed 
eternal, unchangeable decree. Take the 
following texts as samples. 

Eze. xviii. 32 : " For I have no pleasure 
^n the death of him that dieth, saith the 
Lord God ; wherefore turn yourselves and 
live ye." Chap, xxxiii. 11 : " As I live 
saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in 
the death of the wicked ; but that the 
wicked turn from his way and live " 

In these texts God denies the existence 
of the supposed decree in two ways. 

1. He denies that he has any pleasure in 
the death of him that dieth. That is, in 
fact, a denial that he did by his most wise 
and holy counsel ordain that death. 

2. God affirms that he has pleasure in 
the return and life of sinners, and this is a 
denial that he has ordained that they 
should not turn and live, and yet many do 
not turn and live. It is clear, therefore, 
that God denies having decreed everything 
which comes to pass. 

2 Peter iii. 9 : " The Lord is not slack 
concerning his promise, but long suffering 
to US-ward, not willing that any should per- 
ish, but that all should come to repentance." 

This text declares that the will of God 
is that none shall perish, which is a denial 
that he has decreed that they shall perish, 
yet some do perish ; there are some things 
come to pass which God has not ordained. 
The text also affirms, that it is the will of 
God, that all men should repent, which is a 



denial that he has ordained their impeni- 
tence, yet, all men do not repent. It is 
therefore certain that God has not, from all 
eternity, ordained whatsoever comes to 
pass, for he has not ordained the continued 
impenitence of sinners. He declares that 
he wills that all men should repent, and to 
affirm that it is his will that they should re- 
pent, is to deny that he has ordained their 
continued impenitence ; their impenitence 
therefore is a thing which comes to pass, 
which God did not ordain. 

Eev. iii. 15 : *'I know thy works : that 
thou art neither cold or hot ; I would thou 
wert cold or hot." Here the will of God 
is declared to be different from the actual 
state of things that existed. How could 
God declare that he would have them some- 
thing different from what they were, if he 
had, by his most wise and holy counsel, or- 
dained that they should be just what they 
were ? It is impossible, unless God or- 
dained in contravention of his own will, or 
wills two opposite things at the same time. 



SECTION III. 

An Argument in Support of Divine Decrees 
Answered. 

Calvanistic writers have not been want- 
ing in efforts to repel the difficulties thrown 
in the way of their theory, and it is no more 
than justice requires, to pay some attention 
to their arguments. The following argu- 
ment, though short, is the best of its class, 
and well calculated to bewilder, if not con- 
vince common minds. It speaks for itself 
as follows : — 

•' Two leading objections are urged against 
the doctrine of Divine Decrees, viz : that it 
is inconsistent with man's free agency, and 
that it makes God the author of sin. There 
is a very short method of testing the strength 
of these objections. We propose to the 
opposers of this doctrine, the following ques- 
tion : Do the Scriptures teach that God de- 
creed any one event which was brought to 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



155 



pass by the instrumentality of men ? For 
instance, did he decree the taking of Baby 
Ion, and the restoration of the Jews at the 
end of seventy years ? Or did he foreordain 
the crucifixion of Christ ? Will any one 
venture to deny that both these events were 
foreordained or decreed ? See Isaiah xiv. 24 
-27 ; Acts ii. 23, and iv. 21, 28. Since 
these events w^re evidently foreordained, 
were those by whose instrumentality they 
were brought to pass, deprived of their free 
agency ? and did God become the author of 
their sins ? If God's decree did not, in ei- 
ther of these instances, destroy free agency, 
and make him the author of sin, is it not 
evident, beyond all cavil, that these two ob- 
jections are utterly without force ? nay, that 
they are urged against the plain and admit- 
ted teaching of the Bible ?" 

As the above is judged conclusive, and 
has been so pronounced by strong men, the 
reader will have patience while it receives a 
thorough review, and a close sifting. 

There is, perhaps, no more fruitful source 
of division of sentiment, controversy, and 
fallacious reasoning, than a misapprehension 
of the question in issue, or in a failure of 
parties to understand what each other mean 
by the terms in which propositions are sta- 
ted. We believe firmly in the doctrine of 
" Divine Decrees," as we understand it, and 
yet we do not believe the doctrine, and look 
upon it with abhorrence, as some others ap- 
pear to us to understand it. We believe 
that Divine Decrees and free agency are 
perfectly consistent with each other, as we 
understand decrees and free agency ; and 
yet as some others appear to understand 
them, it is not possible for us to see how 
the one can be reconciled with the other. 
This renders it proper to explain terms be- 
fore rushing into a controversy about conclu- 
sions, which must depend upon the sense in 
which they are understood. 

•What is meant by "Divine Decrees?" 
The word " divine" is a mere qualifying 
term, to denote that the decrees in question, 
are the decrees of divinity, and not of hu- 
manity ; or, that they are the decrees of 



God, and not of men, angels, or devils. We 
have, therefore, only to deal with the word 
" decrees." In a civil and legal sense, a de- 
cree is an edict or law, or a decision of judg- 
ment rendered by a court in a litigated case ; 
but in theology, as used in the argument, 
it must denote a predetermined purpose of 
God. In this simj^le sense, we believe in 
"Divine Decrees." We believe that God 
has predetermined purposes. Nor do we 
believe that these " Divine Decrees" conflict 
with man's free agency, as we understand it, 
in the slightest degree. A decree, or pre- 
determination in the mind of God, does not, 
and cannot of itself, act on the human mind, 
nor does it, nor can it present an object for 
the action of the human mind, until the de- 
cree is declared or revealed. It is not pos- 
sible to conceive how a decree or purpose in 
the mind of God can have any influence upon 
the minds of men, until that purpose or de- 
cree is made known to them. It can have 
no more influence in controlling the human 
mind, than the ten commandments or the 
Gospel of Christ can, in moulding the lives 
of the heathens, who never heard of either. 
The mere act of determining or decreeing 
in the mind of God, cannot control the hu- 
man mind of itself, since the decree is sup- 
posed to have existed from eternity, before 
the mind of man existed ; and since it must 
be admitted, the decree exists in the Di- 
vine mind, years after the existence of 
the human mind to which it is supposed to 
relate, before the decreed act or event trans- 
pires. If the simple decree of God pro- 
duced the thing or act decreed, without the 
putting forth of an executive power beyond 
the simple act of decreeing, the thing or act 
would of necessity transpire simultaneously 
with the decree in the Eternal Mind. A de- 
cree, then, does not and cannot execute it- 
self, from which one of two consequences 
must follow. 

1. The decrees of God must be liable to 
fail of being executed, some being accom- 
plished and others not, as different men in 
the exercise of their " free agency," act dif- 
ferently under the same responsibilities, as 



156 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book ii. 



though we were to suppose that God decreed 
that Cain should not kill Abel, and that 
Cain broke the decree, and that he decreed 
that Enoch should walk with God, and he 
did walk with God and fulfilled the decree. 
This view is certainly consistent with man's 
free agency. But if this view be denied, 
then it must follow, 

2. That as a decree is not and cannot be 
self-executive, God must, in some way, put 
forth an executive power, which accomplishes 
the thing decreed, maugre all opposition 
If this be the position, the objection does 
not lie against the supposed decree, as being 
'' inconsistent with man's free agency," but 
against the executive power which God is 
supposed to put forth to execute his decrees 
and on this point we will raise the issue in 
its proper place. It is fallacious to con 
found the supposed decrees of God, existino 
ft-om eternity with the executive power 
which he puts forth in time to execute them, 
They are distinct matters, as distinct as a 
prospective determination of the mind, and 
an actual execution of a pre-conceived pur 
pose, as distinct as the act of willing is from 
the act of executing the will, or the act of 
willing a free agent to perform a given act, 
and the act of so operating on him in some 
way as to cause him to perform it, they are 
as distinct as intransitive ac^'ion is from 
transitive action. The act of decreeing is 
intransitive what takes place in the mind of 
God ; the execution of such decrees, by 
putting forth the necessary executive pow- 
er, is transitive action which must terminate 
on agencies without the mind of God. The 
act of determining or decreeing, and the 
act of executing the things determined or 
decreed being clearly distinct, we repeat 
that the charge of inconsistency with " man's 
free agency," cannot lie against simple " Di- 
vine Decrees," but if it exists at all, it lies 
against the exercise of the executive power 
by which the things decreed are brought to 
pass. 

On the subject of decrees, we hold that 
God has decreed everything that is right in 
the conduct of free agents, and that he has 



decreed nothing that is wrong in their con- 
duct. If an issue be raised with us in op- 
position to this view of " Divine Decrees," 
it must be distinctly on one of two grounds, 
viz., on the ground that God has not de- 
creed all that is right in the conduct of free 
agents, or else on the ground that God has 
decreed some things that are wrong in the 
conduct of free agents. This presents the 
following points : 

1. If our view be admitted, that is, if it 
be admitted that God has decreed all that 
is right in the conduct of free agents, and 
that he has decreed nothing that is wrong 
in their conduct, the controversy is at an 
end, and it is clear that the " Divine De- 
crees" neither conflict with free agency, nor 
make God the author of sin, so that all that 
is right in the conduct of free agents does 
not transpire, diowing that all that is de- 
creed does not come to pass, and since some 
things that are wrong do transpire in the 
conduct of free agents, showing that some 
things come to pass which God has not de- 
creed. 

2. If an issue be raised with our view on 
the ground, that God has not decreed all that 
is right in the conduct of free agents, it will 
only be a negative position, a denial of de- 
crees ; and though it might argue an ' indif- 
ference in the mind of God in relation to 
the right action of the agencies he has cre- 
ated, yet it makes nothing in support of di- 
vine decrees, and need not be further con- 
sidered in this review. 

3. If an issue be raised with us on the 
ground, that God has decreed what is wrong 
in the conduct of free agents, we accept the 
issue, and will meet the argument under re- 
view, and prove that the •' Divine Decrees" 
are either mere purposes of the Divine mind, 
or a mere choice of the Divine will, neces- 
sarily bringing nothing to pass, or that their 
execution is " inconsistent with man's free 
agency, and that it makes God the author 
of sin." 

The argument now under review, rests 
wholly upon the assumption that if the 
" Scriptures teach that God decreed any 



CHAP. YII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



157 



one event wliicli was brought about by the 
instrumentality of men," then decrees are 
consistent with man's free agency. This 
can be true only upon the supposition that 
a decree of itself has no controlling influence 
over the human mind, which we have shown 
to be the case. If this be the case, and it 
must be, as a decree is distinct from the 
power that executes it, God may have de- 
creed certain acts of free agents, and left 
them free to perform them or not perform 
them ; and some things which he decreed 
may have come to pass, as upon the suppo- 
sition that he decreed that Enoch should 
walk with God, and he, in the exercise of 
his free agency, did walk with God ; while 
some other things which he decreed may 
not have come to pass, as upon the suppo- 
sition that he decreed that Cain should love 
his brother ; and Cain, in the exercise of his 
free agency, did not love his brother. Such 
a view of decrees, we repeat, does not con- 
flict with man's free agency, or make God 
the author of sin ; but it has been shown 
that it is not the decree that conflicts with 
free agency, but the executive power which 
executes it. The fact, therefore, that " God 
did decree one event which has been brought 
to pass by the instrumentality of men," ad- 
mitting it to be true, does not meet what 
we understand to be the Calvinistic view of 
" Divine Decrees," but only meets the Ar- 
menian view of decrees. The point to be 
proved is, that God has not only decreed 
what is wrong in the actions of men, but 
that he so puts forth an executive power, in 
some way, as to place it beyond the possi- 
bility of man to fail to do what is decreed, 
rendering it impossible, that he should act 
otherwise than he does act. If pod has de- 
creed what is wrong in the actions of men, 
and if he renders it impossible, by an exe- 
cutive influence, for man to act otherwise 
than is decreed, then man cannot be a free 
agent, and God must be the author of sin. 
Allowing the decree to exist, it follows that 
God does, by an executive. influence, exerted 
over the minds of men, in some way, render 
it impossible that men should act otherwise 



than is decreed, otherwise than they do act, 
or he does not exert such executive influ- 
ence over the minds of men. If God does 
not exert such an executive influence over 
the minds of men, as to render it impossible 
that they should act otherwise than they do 
act. then men might act otherwise than is de- 
creed, might fail to fulfil the decree, and it is 
possible for what God has decreed not to 
come to pass. If this be admitted, it must 
follow, that " Divine Decrees," in all mat- 
ters where human agency is involved, are 
inefficient, that they bring nothing to pass, 
that men do nothing under the influence of 
decrees or in consequence of decrees, that 
they act just as they would have acted, if 
there had been no decrees, and that all such 
matters as involve the agency of man, come 
to pass, just as they would have come to 
pass if God had formed no decrees. If this 
be admitted, the whole argument is at an 
end, and there will be no more controversy 
with the *' Doctrine of Divine Decrees," on 
the ground that it is inconsistent with man's 
free agency, or that it makes God the author 
of sin. On the other hand, if it be affirmed 
that God does exert such an executive in- 
fluence over the minds of men, as to render 
it impossible for them to will and act difier- 
ently, from what they do will and act, by 
which he certainly secures the fulfillment of 
what he has decreed, in relation to actions 
which are wrong, then such executive ac- 
tion " is inconsistent with man's free agency, 
and makes God the author of sin." 

The first of these points must appear, 
from a consideration of what constitutes 
"free agency." By man's free agency, 
must be meant a power possessed by man 
to will and act freely. The word " agency," 
means simply an actor — or action, or opera- 
tion ; and the qualifying word, " free," means 
unrestrained, and is used in contradistinction 
from necessary : it is the antithesis of ne- 
cessary. When action, or the power or will 
to act, is the subject of remark, freedom and 
necessity are terms antithetical to each 
other, so that when we affirm that man wills 
and acts freely, we affirm, in effect, that he 



158 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



does not -will and act necessarily, and when 
we affirm that he wills and acts necessarily, 
we affirm, in effect, that he does not will 
and act freely. " Man's free agency," there- 
fore, if allowed, must include, not only 
the power to will and act as he does wi 
and act, but the power to will and act dif- 
ferently from what he does will and act 
When an agent can act only in a given di- 
rection, and cannot refrain from acting in that 
direction, we say that he acts necessarily 
and, consequently, we affirm that he does 
not act freely ; hence, when we affirm the 
doctrine of " man's free agency," we affirm 
in effect, that he has the power to will and 
act differently from what he does. To affirm 
that man is a free agent, and to affirm that 
he cannot will and act differently from what 
he does, is to confound terms, by affirming, 
in effect, that man is a free agent, and a ne- 
cessary agent at the same time. The fact 
of man's free agency is not in dispute, the 
argument under review admits it. The ar- 
gument is designed to prove that the doc- 
trine of " Divine Decrees" is not " inconsist- 
ent with man's free agency," which is an 
admission of the existence of such free agen- 
cy. Now, as a " free agent is one who can 
act differently from what he does act, in 
contradistinction from a necessary agent, 
who can act only in one way, to affirm that 
God exercises such an executive influence 
over the minds of men, as to render it im- 
possible for them to act otherwise than they 
do act, is necessarily to conflict with man's 
free agency," it must destroy it. 

The second consequence must appear, 
from a consideration of what it is to be, 
''the author of sin." "Sin is the trans- 
gression of the law." The laAV requires all 
right action, and forbids all wrong action 
by free agents ; any non-performance of 
right action, or any performance of wrong 
action, is a transgression of the law, and is 
sin. Now, if God has decreed what is 
wrong in the actions of men, and if he ex- 
erts such an executive influence over men, 
as to render it impossible for them to do 
otherwise than perform that which he has 



decreed, that is wrong in their actions, he is 
the author of the sin. If God decrees the 
act which transgresses the law, and so con- 
trols man's agency, as to render it impossi- 
ble for him not to perform the act, he is the 
author of the sin, in every true sense of au- 
thorship. The author of anything, is he 
who causes it to exist or transpire, and if 
God decreed the sinful actions of men, and 
executes that decree by an executive influ- 
ence, which renders it impossible for them to 
do otherwise than perform those sinful ac- 
tions, he is clearly the author of sin. 

It will be futile to attempt to evade this 
conclusion, by affirming that man executes 
the divine decree freely, that, though God 
decreed the acts which are wrong in his 
conduct, yet he performs those acts freely 
and from choice, in consequence of which, 
he is responsible and guilty. Suppose we 
admit all this, suppose we admit the anoma-' 
ly in metaphysics, that men act freely when 
they act necessarily, or under a divine exe- 
cutive influence, which renders it impossible 
for them to act otherwise than they do ; and 
suppose we admit the anomaly in morals, 
that men are guilty for acts because they 
choose to perform them, where they could 
no more help so choosing, than a balance 
can help turning when a weight is thrown 
into one end of the scales ; suppose we ad- 
mit all this for the sake of the argument, it 
will still leave God the author of sin, accord- 
ing to all just rules of interpretation. If, 
under this admission, man is the author of 
his own sin, in a sense which renders him 
guilty, God is still the author of the man, 
and of all his sin and consequent guilt. The 
decree of God is supposed to include the 
whole subject ; if man acts, God decreed 
that action, according to the theory we op- 
pose ; if man acts freely, God decreed that 
he should act freely ; if man acts from 
choice, God decreed that choice, and if man 
is guilty because he acts freely and from 
choice, God decreed that guilt, and God has 
brought the whole to pass by an executive 
influence, as has been shown must be the 
case, to give any efficiency to " Divine De- 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



159 



crees." There may be more parties than 
one to a transaction, and hence the fact, 
that man is guilty, does not, in the least de- 
gree, prove that God is not the author of 
sin. According to the doctrine of " Divine 
Decrees," the wrong action had its first 
prospective existence in the mind of God, in 
the form of a decree or determination, and 
it was brought into actual being by an irre- 
sistible executive influence. God is, there- 
fore, the original projector, the first and eflB- 
cient author, and whatever secondary agen- 
cies may intervene and be involved, God 
necessarily sustains the relation of author to 
them all, and must be the author of sin, for 
sin is included in these secondary agencies, 
of which he is author, and which he con- 
trols. 

We trust the candid reader by this time 
is satisfied that the argument under review, 
is based upon a fallacious principle : the 
principle being that if the " Scriptures 
teach that God decreed any one event which 
was brought to pass by the instrumen- 
tality of men," the doctrine of divine de- 
crees is vindicated. Still, it may be well 
to glance at the texts of Scripture referred 
to as proof. The first text referred to is 
Isa. xiv. 24-27. We admit that God here 
declares a purpose, and that such purpose 
was executed by the instrumentality of men 
The purpose was the overthrow of Babylon, 
and the return of the captive Israelites to 
their own land. 

1. This purpose does not necessarily in- 
clude the sinful acts for which the Israelites 
were sent into captivity, nor does it include 
the wickedness of Babylon, for which they 
were to be punished. The just punishment 
of Assyrians, and the deliverance of the 
children of Israel, is all that is declared as 
the decree. 

2. The fact that this declared purpose 
was brought to pass by human agency, does 
not prove either that every act and result 
of human agencies are decreed, or that hu- 
man agency, left to its own free action, does 



revealed decrees ; nor yet does it prove, that 
there was exerted any executive influence 
over the agencies by which the purpose of 
God was fulfilled, in this particular case, 
which did not leave it possible for them to 
have acted differently, in which case, God 
would have had to have called in other agen- 
cies to accomplish his purpose, as he often 
has done in the course of his administration, 
when one agency actually employed fails to 
accomplish its mission, he casts it off, and 
employs another. 

3. God may have raised up Cyrus for the 
purpose of having him execute his judgment 
upon Babylon, and in doing so, he foresaw 
just what Cyrus would do, and pre-publish- 
ed him as his minister of justice, and the 
fact of the publication, was one influence 
that led to its accomplishment. It is stated 
that Cyrus read the prophet on the subject, 
and understood that it related to himself. 
We admit that the published purpose of 
God, understood by the agency by which it 
is to be accomplished, may exert an influ- 
ence over those agents, but this is an influ- 
ence perfectly consistent with " man's free 
agency ;" but an unpublished decree can 
have no influence on the minds of men, as 
has been shown, and can secure nothing in 
the line of human agency, without an exec- 
utive influence, which is inconsistent with 
human agency. 

Acts ii. 23 is next referred to. It reads 
thus : — " Him being delivered by the deter- 
minate counsel and foreknowledge of God, 
ye have taken, and by wicked hands have 
sacrificed and slain." 

1. The delivery " by the determinate 
counsel and foreknowledge of God," relates 
to the gift of Christ, by the Father, for the 
redemption of the world, as declared John 
iii. 16-17. It is said that God gave his 
Son, and that he sent his Son into the 
world. 

2. The taking by wicked hands, was not 
included in the determinate counsel and 
foreknowledge of God, as here expressed. 



in every case accomplish what God has de-|lt was doubtless foreknown, but it is not 
creed, admittino: God to have a book of un-lthe thing affirmed of the foreknowledge. 



160 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



Nor was it a necessary part of the design 
of the delivery or gift of Christ. The cru- 
cifixion was a circumstance attending the 
death of Christ, growing out of the state 
of things existing at the time, but it was not 
essential to that death or to the atonement. 
He said, " No man taketh my life from me, 
I lay it down of myself." John x. 18. He 
commenced his sorrowful death-struggle in 
the garden, before wicked hands were laid 
upon him, and it does not appear that he 
finally died of the violence offered to his phy- 
sical nature, but the reverse ; he died under 
the weight of the world's sin, he yielded up 
the ghost a voluntary sacrifice. The Jews 
are here charged with killing him in view 
of their wicked intentions, they designed 
his death from wicked motives, but it was 
the Gentiles who crucified him, the Jews 
having no legal power to take life at this 
time. It does not appear, then, from the 
text that God decreed anything that was 
wicked in the actions of men. 

The last text referred to is Acts iv. 27-28, 
as follows : — " For of a truth against thy 
holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, 
both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the 
Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gath- 
ered together. For to do whatsoever thy 
hand and thy counsel determined before to 
be done." 

The only comment necessary to be offered 
on this text is to transpose its parts, with- 
out altering a word, so as to make it read 
as follows : — " For of a truth, against thy 
holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anoint- 
ed, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy 
counsel determined before to be done, both 
Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles 
and the people of Israel were gathered to- 
gether." The things determined by God to 
be done, were what Christ was anointed to 
do, and not what his enemies were gathered 
together to do. They were gathered against 
him, and not to do what the counsel of God 
had determined. There is then, no proof 
here that God decreed any of the wicked ac- 
tions of men. 

But it will be said those wicked actions 



were foretold. True, they were ; God fore 
saw how wickedly they would act, and he 
declared it by his prophets ; but they did 
not act wickedly because it was prophesied 
that they would, but it was prophesied be- 
cause God foresaw that they would act 
wickedly. God foresaw what men would 
do, and in a few instances revealed what he 
foresaw, and they did as God saw and said 
they would ; but to argue from this that 
God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass, 
bad as well as good, is to put in the conclu- 
sion what is not in the premises. 

The subject of Divine Decrees and fore- 
ordination, have been treated at greater 
length than it would have"^ been, but for the 
important bearing it has upon several other 
questions yet to be discussed. 



SECTION IV. 

The Atonement is not limited in its Applica- 
tion, by any supposed Decree of election 
and reprobation. 

The doctrine of election find reprobation, 
like predestination or foreordination, is rap- 
idly becoming obsolete in popular theology, 
and is now but seldom heard from the Amer- 
ican pulpit, yet it still has its lurking pla- 
ces, and finds its advocates. It is found in 
the creeds of long established churches, 
rather than in the popular theology of the 
pulpit. 

It is stated as follows, in the Confession 
of Faith of the Presbyterian Churche of the 
United States, Chapter iii. : 

" By the decree of God, for the manifes- 
tation of his glory, some men and angels 
are predestinated unto everlasting life, and 
others foreordained to everlasting death. 

" These angels and men thus predestinated 
and foreordained, are particularly and un- 
changeably designed ; and their number is 
so certain and definite that it cannot be 
either increased or diminished. 

" Those of mankind that are predestinated 
unto life, God, before the foundation of the 
world was laid, according to his eternal and 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



161 



immutable purpose, and the secret counsel 
and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen 
in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his 
mere free grace and love, without any fore- 
sight of faith, or good works, or persever- 
ance in either of them, or any other thing 
in the creature, as conditions, or causes mov- 
ing him thereunto ; and all to the praise of, 
his glorious grace. 

" The rest of mankind God was pleased 
according to the unsearchable counsel of 
his own will, whereby he extendeth or with- 
holdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory 
of his sovereign power over his creatures, 
to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor 
and Avrath for their sins, to the praise of his 
glorious justice." 

The above extract has not been made for 
the purpose of subjecting the verbage to se- 
vere criticism, to which it is exceeding liable 
and by which it might be made to appear 
self-contradictory and ridiculous ; the sole 
object is to spread before the reader an au- 
thentic statement of the doctrine of elec- 
tion and reprobation, as held, at least by 
one class of Calvinistic divines. And the 
doctrine being thus stated in the language 
of its advocates, without taking any excep- 
tions to the manner, an attempt will be made 
to refute the fundamental principles involved. 

I. The refutation of the doctrine of God's 
eternal decree of foreordination, in the pre- 
ceeding section, has removed the only foun- 
dation of the doctrine of eternal and un- 
conditional election and reprobation. The 
doctrine of election and reprobation, as set 
forth in the extracts which have been made 
above, cannot be maintained only upon the 
assumption that God has foreordained what- 
soever comes to pass. The act of electing 
all that will ever be saved, and the deter- 
mining all the means ; and the act of repro- 
bating all that will ever be lost, and the de- 
termining of all the means, necessarily com- 
prehends whatsoever comes to pass, so far as 
regards human conduct and destiny. If God 
has not decreed the certain salvation of a 
part, and the certain damnation of the rest 
of mankind, and also unchangeably decreed 
11 



all the means leading thereunto in both cases, 
there is no such thing as certain election and 
reprobation. But if God has decreed all 
these points, he has decreed and ordained 
whatsoever comes to pass, so far as human 
conduct and destiny are concerned. With 
the doctrine of God's eternal unchangea- 
ble decree of foreordination, must the doc- 
trine of election and reprobation stand or 
fall. At this point the reader will fallback 
upon the preceding section, where it was 
demonstrated that no such decree of fore- 
ordination exists, and he will find his mind 
irresistibly brought to the conclusion, that 
the doctrine of eternal unconditional elec- 
tion and reprobation cannot be true. The 
argument need not be repeated here. If the 
doctrine of God's eternal, unchangeable de- 
cree of foreordination was not refuted in the 
preceding section, a repetition of the argu- 
ments would not accomplish such refutation ; 
but if that doctrine was refuted, as no doubt 
it was, the conclusion is legitimate in this 
place, and it follows that the doctrine of 
unconditional election and reprobation is 
not true. 

II. The clearly established fact that 
Christ died for all mankind, is a standing 
refutation of the doctrine of unconditional 
election and reprobation. For the argu- 
ment on this point the reader is referred to 
the first section of the present chapter. It 
is there demonstrated that Christ died for 
all mankind, that the atonement made by 
him was for universal humanity. Of the 
conclusiveness of the argument there offered, 
there can be no doubt. The fact then being 
established that Christ died for all men, the 
doctrine of eternal and unconditional elec- 
tion cannot be true. That God predestina- 
ted a portion of mankind to eternal death, 
and at the same time so loved them as to 
give his only begotten Son to die for them, 
that whosoever believeth in him might not 
perish, is impossible. To suppose that he 
was moved by love to give his Son, that 
those might not perish, bat have everlasting 
life, whom he had from all eternity ordained 
and predestinated to eternal death, is an ab- 



162 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II 



surdity too monstrous for common sense to 
brook. It lias then been proved that Christ 
died for all, and from this it follows, that 
none were eternally predestinated to damna- 
tion, and the doctrine of unconditional elec- 
tion and reprobation cannot be true. 

III. God denies having elected and rep- 
robated mankind, unconditionally, the one 
portion to eternal life, and the other portion 
to eternal death. In some texts the denial 
is direct, and in others it is by the clearest 
inplication. Take the declaration of God 
to Cain. Gen. iv. 7 : "If thou doest well, 
shalt thou not be accepted ? if thou doest 
not well, sin lieth at the door." Allow 
to God only the freedom from duplicity 
which we require of men, and this text 
amounts to a denial, on the part of God, 
that he had either unconditionally elected 
Cain to life, or reprobated him to death. 

Deut. XXX. 19 : "I call heaven and earth 
to record this day against you, that I have 
set before you life and death, blessing and 
cursing : therefore choose life, that both 
thou and thy seed may live." 

Setting life and death before them, must 
mean, putting them in such relations to 
both, as to render either possible. If any 
were by a,n eternal decree, elected uncon- 
ditionally to eternal life, death was not set 
before them, for death was never possible 
unless the election could fail ; and if any 
were reprobated to eternal death, life was 
never set before them, for it was never 
within their reach, never possible that they 
should live, unless the decree of reproba- 
tion could be broken. The declaration, 
therefore, that both life and death were set 
before them, was, by the clearest possible 
implication, a denial that they were either 
elected or reprobated unconditionally. 

Eze. xviii. 23 ; " Have I any pleasure at 
all that the wicked should die ? saith the 
Lord God ; and not that he should return 
from his ways and live ?" In this God most 
positively denies having reprobated and 
ordained the wicked to death. But in 
verse 26 and 27, God denies both election 
and reprobation. " When a righteous man 



turneth away from his righteousness, and 
committeth iniquity, and dieth in them ; 
for his iniquity that he hath done shall he 
die. Again, when the wicked man turneth 
away from his wickedness that he hath 
committed, and doeth that which is lawful 
and right, he shall save his soul alive." 
In this, God absolutely denies that he has 
unconditionally elected some men to ever- 
lasting life, and foreordained others to ever- 
lasting death, and that the number thus 
elected and reprobated " is so certain and 
definite that ic can be neither increased or 
diminished." The declarations of the text 
are so entirely inconsistent with this doc- 
trine, that both cannot be true, and God is 
to be believed before the speculations of 
men. The same sentiment is repeated in 
chap, xxxiii., with the solemnity of an oath, 
and if God is to be believed under oath, the 
question must be settled. But God further 
confirms his denial, of any such decree of 
election and rej^robation, verse 29, by re- 
plying to their charge of unequal dealing 
upon the divine administration. " Yet 
saith the house of Israel, the way of the 
Lord is not equal. house of Israel, are 
not my ways equal ? are not your Avays un- 
equal ?" This reply of Jehovah cannot be 
reconciled with the supposed decree of elec- 
tion and reprobation. 

If we come down to the New Testament, 
we shall there find the same denial repeated 
in various forms. 

Acts X. 34 : " Then Peter opened his 
mouth and said, of a truth I perceived that 
God is no respecter of persons." 

Eom. ii. 9-11 : " Tribulation and an- 
guish upon every soul of man that doeth 
evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gen- 
tile : but glory, honor and peace, to every 
man that worketh good, to the Jews first, 
and also to the Gentiles ; for there is no re- 
spect of persons with God." 

Eph. vi, 9 : Neither is there respect of 
persons with him." 

1 Peter i. 17 : " And if ye call on the ' 
Father, who without respect of persons 
judgeth according to every man's work, 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



163 



pass the time of your sojourning here in 
fear." 

To elect some men to eternal life, and to 
reprobate others to eternal death, without 
any reference to their prospective moral 
character, virtue or vice, would be to have 
a respect of persons, and it is this very 
thing which is so repeatedly denied. 

The above texts are given as a specimen 
of a very numerous class, but they are suffi- 
cient to show that God denies any such 
partial proceeding as the doctrine of elec- 
tion and reprobation attributes to him, 
and asserts the entire impartiality and 
equality of his government. 

IV. The gospel addresses itself to all, 
invites all, and promises to save all that 
will comply with its conditions. This ar- 
gument need not be elaborated in this 
place, as the principal proof texts have 
already been adduced on another point. 
The reader is referred to the first section of 
this chapter, and to the fourth argument, 
where the principal texts were quoted to 
prove that Christ died for all men. Avail- 
ing the argument at this point, of the fact 
there made plain, that the gospel addresses 
itself to all, invites all, and promises to save 
all who will comply with its conditions, the 
whole is conclusive against the doctrine of 
election and reprobation. To preach the 
gospel to reprobates, to say the least, is 
useless. To invite them to come to Christ, 
and be saved, is to trifle, if not to mock 
them, since God designed they never should 
come, and has made their refusal to come, 
certain, by an eternal decree. To promise 
them salvation on condition of coming, to 
tell them that they can be saved by any 
measures or means, or on any conditions, 
or in any way, is to perpetrate an absolute 
unmitigated falsehood, since if the supposed 
decree of election and reprobation be true, 
it is not, and never was possible for the 
reprobates to be saved. 

v. The argument ofiered in proof that 
Christ died for all, based upon the fact that 
the Scriptures demand faith of all men, is 
just as applicable and conclusive against j 



the doctrine of unconditional election and 
reprobation. It is the sixth argument in 
section one, and the reader can turn to it 
and save repeating it in this place. The 
application of the argument is plain. As 
all are required to believe and trust in 
Christ that they may be saved, believe and 
trust Christ for salvation, salvation must 
be possible in and through Christ, or they 
are required to believe a lie. But if salva- 
tion is possible in and through Christ, the 
doctrine of unconditional election and rep- 
robation must be false. 

VI. Of the same applicability and force, 
is the seventh argument of the same series, 
upon the same point, to which the reader is 
referred. It is there shown that the Scrip- 
tures charge upon sinners their own de- 
struction, as a consequence of their own 
conduct, in rejecting Christ. This charge 
is false, if they were from all eternity 
passed by and ordained to eternal death. 
The supposed decree of God was prior to 
their conduct, and as that comprehended 
and made sure not only their damnation, 
but also their conduct, to charge their dam- 
nation upon their conduct as their fault, 
must be false as well as an insult poured 
upon the top of the injury and misery of 
perdition, 

VII. The plain Scriptural doctrine of 
the conditionality of salvation, is a standing 
refutation of the doctrine of unconditional 
election and reprobation. There are a 
variety of arguments, by which salvation 
might be proved to be conditional, but a 
simple appeal to the Scriptures, is all that 
will be attempted in this place. 

Matt. xix. 16, 17: "And behold, one 
came and said unto him, good master, what 
good thing shall I do, that I may have eter- 
nal life? And he said unto him, if thou 
wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." 

Mark xvi. 16 : " He that believeth and 
is baptized, shall be saved, and he that be- 
lieveth not, shall be damned." 

Jon iii. 36 : " He that believeth on the 
Son, hath everlasting life, and he that be- 
lieveth not the Son, shall not see life." 



164 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



Eev. ii . 10 : "Be thou faithful unto death 
and I will give thee a crown of life." 

John vi. 40 : "This is the will of him 
that sent me, that every one, which seeth 
the Son and believeth on him, may have 
everlasting life." Yerse47 : " Yerily, verily, 
I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath 
everlasting life." 

John V. 40 : " Ye will not come unto me 
that ye might have life." 

John iii. 14, 15 : "So must the Son of 
Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth 
in him, should not perish, but have everlast- 
ing life." 

Rev. iii. 5 : "He that overcometh, shall 
be clothed in white raiment, and I will not 
blot his name out of the book of life, but I 
will confess his name before my Father, and 
before his angels." Yerse 21 : "To him 
that overcometh, will I grant to sit with me 
on my throne, even as I also overcame, and 
am set down with my Father in his throne." 

These texts obviously refer to the final 
state of mankind, and they clearly teach 
that salvation is conditionally offered to 
mankind. The state of things presented is, 
some are saved, and others are not. But 
salvation is conditional, and what is condi- 
tional, may be secured or lost, and the con- 
clusion is, that those who are saved, might 
be lost, and that those who are lost, might 
be saved. To deny that those who are saved 
could be lost, and that those who are lost 
could be saved, would be to deny that sal- 
vation is conditional. If then, those who 
are saved might be lost, and those who are 
lost might be saved, the doctrine of God's 
eternal decree of election and reprobation, 
by which the numbers of the saved and lost 
are rendered so certain and definite, that 
they can neither be increased or diminished, 
must be false. 

YIII. The Scriptures teach that real 
Christians are in danger of apostatizing, and 
being lost, which proves the doctrine of un- 
conditional election, to be untrue, in which 
case, reprobation must also be untrue. 

Those who hold to the doctrine of un- 
conditional election, deny that Christians 



can so fall away as to be lost, but this 
denial is a matter of necessity, to sustain 
the doctrine of election, and is maintained 
against the most positive Scriptural proof, 
as will be seen. 

1. The Scriptures in the most direct and 
conclusive manner teach the possibility and 
danger of apostacy and final ruin on the 
part of Christians. The class of texts 
which prove this point, are so numerous, that 
but a few out of the whole need be adduced. 
1 Chron. xxxviii. 9 : " And thou Solomon 
my son, know thou the God of thy father, 
and serve him with a perfect heart, and 
with a willing mind ; for the Lord search- 
eth all hearts, and understandeth all the 
imaginations of the thoughts ; if thou seek 
him he will be found of thee ; but if thou 
forsake him, he will cast thee off forever." 
The expression, " if thou forsake him," im- 
plies that it was a possible thing for Solomon 
to forsake God ; and the expression, " he will 
cast thee off forever," proves the liability of 
being finally lost. 

Eze. xviii. 24 : Wlien the righteous turn- 
eth away from his righteousness, and doeth 
according to all the abominations that the 
wicked man doeth, shall he live ? All his 
righteousness that he hath done shall not be 
remembered, in his trespass that he hath 
trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sin- 
ned, in them shall he die." This matter is 
repeated in Chap, xxxiii 13 : " When I shall 
say to the righteous, that he shall surely 
live ; if he trust to his own righteousness and 
commit iniquity, all his righteousness shall 
not be remembered ; but for his iniquity 
that he hath committed, he shall die for it." 
The doctrine in question could not be 
taught in plainer and stronger language, 
and it is not possible that any fair construc- 
tion should be put upon it, which will de- 
stroy its force, or make it bear any other 
sense. That the text treats of really right- 
eous persons, and not of self-righteous per- 
sons, as some have affirmed in their despe- 
ration, is perfectly plain. 

(1.) It is a righteousness from which 
they are supposed to turn, which would save 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



165 



them alive, if persisted in. Their death is 
in consequence of turning from it. This 
could not be true of self-righteousness. No 
man will die for turning from self-righteous- 
ness. 

(2.) It is a righteousness in view of which 
God says to the possessor, that he shall 
surely live. This is God's own word, " when 
I shall say to the righteous, that he shall 
surely live," God never said to a self-right- 
eous man that he should surely live, it is 
therefore really righteous persons treated of 
in the text. 

(3.) There is no such thing as turning 
away from self-righteousness to commit ini- 
quity, for self-righteousness is iniquity itself, 
yet the righteousness is that from which a 
man turns away when he commits iniquity. 

(4.) If it were self-righteousness, turn- 
ing away from it would be a real refor- 
mation, and not a crime, and could not bring 
death. 

(5.) God himself marks the distinction 
between this righteousness and self-righte- 
ousness. " When I shall say to the right- 
eous, that he shall surely live ; if he trust to 
his own righteousness and commit iniquity, 
all his righteousness shall not be remem- 
bered." Here are two kinds of righteous- 
ness, one in view of which God says the 
possessor shall live ; then there is what is 
called his own righteousness, to which if he 
trust the other righteousness in view of which 
God said he should live, shall not be remem- 
bered, but for trusting to his own righte- 
ousness and for his iniquity which he com- 
mits he shall die. It is perfectly clear 
therefore, that the righteousness, from which 
the man is supposed to turn, is a real saving 
righteousness and not a wicked self-right 
eousness. That final and fatal apostacy is 
meant, is clear from the 26 verse of chap 
xviii : "When a righteous man turneth away 
from his righteousness, and comraitteth ini 
quity, and dieth in them ; for his iniquity 
that he hath done, shall he die." Here the 
apostate first dies in his iniquity, and then 
after this it is said that he shall die for it. 

John XV. 4-6 : " Abide in me and I in 



you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of 
itself, except it abide in the vine : no more 
can ye except ye abide in me. I am the 
vine, ye are the branches ; he that abideth 
in me and I in him, the same bringeth forth 
much fruit ; for without me ye can do noth- 
ing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast 
forth as a branch, and is withered ; and men 
gather them, and cast them into the fire, and 
they are burned." 

If there is any force in this illustration 
used by our Saviour, then, just so sure as a 
branch may be cut from a vine and wither 
and die, so sure may one in Christ, the true 
vine, cease to abide in him and be cast forth 
as a branch and perish. The subject illus- 
trates the possibility of losing our interest 
in Christ, and nothing else. 

Gal. V. 4 : " Christ is become of none 
effect unto you, whosoever of you are justi- 
fied by the law : ye are fallen from Grace." 

This text declares, in so many words, 
that certain of the Church at Galatia, had 
fallen from Grace. To fall from Grace 
must be to lose the saving benefit of Grace. 
That this fall was an entire and ruinous one 
in degree, is certain, from the declaration 
that Christ had become of no efiect unto 
them. Those to whom Christ is of no ef- 
fect are not in a state of saving Grace, and 
cannot be saved, only as any other sinner 
may be saved by repentance and faith. 

Heb. vi. 4-6 : " It is impossible for those 
who were once enlightened, and have tasted 
of the heavenly gift, and were made partak- 
ers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the 
good word of God, and of the powers of 
the world to come, if they shall fall away, 
to renew them again unto repentance ; see- 
ing they crucify to themselves, the Son 
of God afresh, and put him to an open 
shame." 

There can be no doubt that this text 
speaks of real Christians. It most probar 
bly refers to such as had been made partak- 
ers of extraordinary and miraculous gifts of 
the Holy Spirit, which were peculiar to the 
apostolic age. If such fell away and denied 
Christ, their sin was so great that they 



166 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



could not be reclaimed. But while the 
texts speaks of real christians, it is equally 
certain that they could fall away, and fall 
below the possibility of being reclaimed. 
That christians can fall and be lost is 
therefore certain. 

2 Peter i. 9, 10 : " But he that lacketh 
these things is blind, and cannot see afar 
off, and hath forgotten that he was purged 
from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, 
brethren, give diligence to make your call- 
ing and election sure; for if ye do these 
things, ye shall never fall." 

This teaches the possibility of apostacy 
in two ways. First, it supposes a class al- 
ready fallen, such as had forgotten that they 
had been purged from their old sins. Sec- 
ondly, the text gives directions how to prevent 
falling, which implies that those will fall 
who do not attend to the things named. 
Chap. ii. 14, 20, 21 : ''Cursed children which 
have forsaken the right way, and are gone 
astray, following the way of Balaam the son 
of Bosor, who loved the ways of unrighte- 
ousness. For, if after they have escaped 
the pollutions of the world, through the 
knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ, they are again entangled therein and 
overcome, the latter end is worse than the 
beginning. For it had been better for them 
not to have known the way of righteous- 
ness, than, after they have known it, to 
turn from the holy commandment delivered 
unto them." 

The force of this text depends upon two 
facts, which need to be distinctly noted. 

(1.) The text treats of those who had been 
real christians. They were such as had for- 
saken the right way, and must have been in 
the right way or they could not have forsa- 
ken it. None but real christians can be 
said to be in the right way. Common sin- 
ners are not in the right way. False pro- 
fessors are not in the right way, whether 
they be hypocrites or self-deceived persons. 
None but real christians are in the right 
way, and these must have been real chris- 
tians, for they forsook the right way, which 
they could not have done, had they not been; 



in it. Again, they had escaped the pollu- 
tions of the world, through the knowledge 
of the Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. This 
clearly implies that they were real christians. 
No sinner, no hypocrite, and no self-deceived 
professor, can be said to have escaped the 
pollution of the world, through the knowl- 
edge of the Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. 

Yet again, they had known the way of 
righteousness, which knowledge none but 
christians have. To know the way of right- 
eousness, implies the experimental knowl- 
edge of a christian. It is a knowledge 
which common sinners, hypocrites and self- 
deceived persons never have. It is clear 
then, that the text treats of those who had 
been real christians. 

(2.) The text treats of final and ruinous 
apostacy. Of this there can be no doubt. 
It is said of them, that they bring upon 
themselves swift destruction. Yerse 1. It 
is said that they shall utterly perish in their 
own corruption. Yerse 12. It is said that 
to them " the mist of darkness is reserved 
forever." Yerse 17. It is said "the latter 
end is worse with them than the beginning." 
Yerse 20. 

This cannot be true of any one reclaimed 
and finally saved. It is clear then, that the 
text treats of the final apostacy of real chris- 
tians, and here let this branch of the argu- 
ment close. 

2. The Scriptures clearly teach that some 
real christians or pious persons have fallen, 
and furnish a variety of examples. It is a 
common faith among christians that angels 
fell, and were hurled from their celestial 
spheres ; and that christians, struggling 
amid the surrounding corruptions of earth, 
enemies without, and enemies within, stand 
more securely, does not readily appear upon 
the face of things. It may be said that 
there is no analogy between the fall of an- 
gels and the fa'l of christians. Such a 
statement is easily made, but it is made in 
the face of the fact that the spirit of inspi- 
ration has seized upon the fall of angels, to 
impress us with a sense of our danger. Our 
first parents fell from a higher state of per- 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OP THE ATONEMENT. 



167 



fection than common christians have attain- 
ed. But it may be said that their fall does 
not prove that christians may fall. Be that 
as it may, it is certain that Paul used the 
fact of their fall, to impress christians with 
a sense of their danger. He says, 2 Cor 
xi. 3 : " But I fear, lest by any means, as 
the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtle- 
ty, so your minds should be corrupted from 
the simplicity that is in Christ." With the 
dark destiny of fallen angels before us, and 
with the visible proofs of the universal cor- 
ruption of humanity, through the fall of a 
common father, it is discordant with all the 
facts around us, to contend that we, as chris- 
tians, stand secure beyond the possibility of 
fatal apostacy. But to all this we may add 
the apostacy of the Israelites who fell in the 
wilderness, to whom Paul appeals with such 
force, as a warning to christians, not to fol 
low their examples, lest they share their 
destiny. The case is presented so clearly by 
the apostle, that no better argument can 
be made than to quote his language : 

1 Cor. X. 1-12 : " Moreover, brethren, I 
would not that ye should be ignorant, how 
that all our fathers were under the cloud, 
and all passed through the sea ; and were 
all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in 
the sea ; and did all eat the same spiritual 
meat ; and did all drink the same spiritual 
drink ; for they drank of that Spiritual 
Rock that followed them : and that Rock 
was Christ. But with many of them God 
was not well pleased ; for they were over- 
thrown in the wilderness. Now these things 
were our examples, to the intent we should 
not lust after evil things, as they also lust- 
ed. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some 
of them ; as it is written. The people sat 
down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. 
Neither let us commit fornication, as some 
of them committed, and fell in one day^ 
three and twenty thousand. Neither let us 
tempt Christ, as some of them also tempt- 
ed, and were destroyed of serpents. Neith- 
er murmur ye, as some of them also mur- 
mured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. 
Now all these things happened unto them 



for ensamples ; and they are written for our 
admonition, upon M^hom the ends oi" the world 
are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh 
he standeth take heed lest he fall." 

The Apostle here appeals to the Israelites 
as to persons who actually fell, to warn 
christian brethren of the danger of falling, 
and to convince them that there was real 
danger in their case. The attempt some- 
times made to evade the force of the apos- 
tle's remarks, by a cavil upon the concluding 
words, " let him that thinketh he standeth 
take heed lest he fall," comes entirely short 
of the object aimed at, and is so weak as 
only to expose the desperate nature of the 
cause in which it is employed. It is, that 
the danger pertains only to those who think 
they stand, and not to those who do really 
stand. To this it is replied, that those who 
only think they stand, but do not really 
stand, cannot be in danger of falling. 

But what is an entire annihilation of this 
attempt at evasion, is the fact that the 
words, " him that thinketh he standeth," in- 
clude all who do really stand. It includes 
all who think they stand, and real christians 
think they stand, it therefore includes real 
christians, and they are admonished to take 
heed, lest they fall, after the fearful example 
of the Israelites, who fell in the wilderness. 
Another clearly marked instance of aposta- 
cy, is found in the case of king Saul. That 
Saul was a renewed man, is clear. Samuel 
told him that he should meet a company of 
prophets, and added, " And the Spirit of 
the Lord will come upon thee, and thou 
shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turn- 
ed into another man." 1 Sam. x. 6. It is 
said again, verse 9 : " God gave him anoth- 
er heart ;" and in verse 10, it is said, " the 
Spirit of God came upon him, and he proph- 
esied." 

After all this it is said, Chap. xvi. 14 : 

But the Spirit of the Lord departed from 
Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord 
troubled him." 

This was after he disobeyed God and sin- 
ned, as charged upon him by Samuel, Chap. 
XV. 19 : "And Saul finally perished by his 



168 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



own sword, in anliour of desperation, when 
lie found himself forsaken of God, and over- 
powered by his enemies." 

He was clearly once a good man, but he 
died a self-murderer, and here we leave him, a 
standing- proof of the possibility of apostacy. 

Solomon presents another case of sad 
apostacy, 1 Kings xi. 4 : "It came to pass, 
when Solomon was old, that his wives turn- 
ed away his heart after other Gods." 

It cannot be affirmed upon sufficient 
proof, that he did not repent before he died, 
for on this point the Scriptures are silent. 
His apostacy is clearly stated, and it 
amounted to idolatry, and here his history 
ends, and here let the subject rest. 

Judas presents another clear case of apos- 
tacy. That Judas died a sinner and per- 
ished, so far as any sinners perish, is not 
denied by those who deny that real chris- 
tians can so fall as to perish. The only de- 
fense against this argument, is based upon 
a denial that Judas was ever a good man. 
The proof that he was a sincere believer in 
Christ at one time, may be summed up in a 
few words. 

(1.) Our Lord ordained him one of his 
Apostles, after special and solemn prayer. 
In this the Evangelists agree. This fact 
ought to settle the question, for to maintain 
an opposite view, is to suppose that Christ 
appointed an unbeliever, and a wicked man, 
one of his Apostles. 

(2.) Christ actually bestowed upon Ju- 
das miraculous gifts, and sent him out to 
exercise them, and to preach the Gospel. 
Of the two points above stated, there is abun- 
dant proof. 

Matt. X. 1, 5, 8 : " And when he had 
called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave 
them power against unclean spirits, to cast 
them out, and to heal all manner of sick- 
ness, and all manner of disease." 

Then follows the names of the twelve, in- 
cluding Judas, after which it is said, " These 
twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded 
them, saying, heal the sick, cleanse the lep- 
ers, raise the dead, cast out devils : freely 
ye have received, freely give." 



Mark iii. 14, 15 : " And he ordained 
twelve, that they should be with him, and 
that he might send them forth to preach, 
and to have power to heal sickness, and to 
cast out devils." 

Again, Peter says of Judas, Acts i. 17: 
" He was numbered with us, and had ob- 
tained part of this ministry." 

Again, he says of Matthias, verse 25 : 
" That he may take part of this ministry, 
and apostleship, from which Judas by trans- 
gression fell." 

The simple point is, that Judas was real- 
ly in the mioistry, and fell from it by trans- 
gression. 

The only possible method of avoiding 
the conclusion, that Judas being a good man, 
fell and was lost, is to maintain that Jesus 
Christ chose, and ordained a wicked man 
and sent him out to preach his gospel. As 
absurd as this may appear, it has been of- 
ten asserted, and John vi. 10, has been ad- 
duced as proof: " Jesus answered them, 
have not I chosen you twelve, and one of 
you is a devil ?" 

This is very far from proving that Judas 
was a devil when he was chosen, and when 
he, with the other apostles, preached the 
gospel and cast out devils. The word devil 
here is not used in its technical sense of an 
evil spirit, or the devil, but a common sense 
of an adversary. The word in a general 
sense denotes an adversary, and in this sense 
Judas was then a devil. There v/as a time 
when Satan got control of the mind of Ju- 
das. 

John xiii. 2 : " The devil having now put 
it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's 
son, to betray him." 

Luke xxii. 3 : " Then entered Satan into 
Judas, surnamed Iscariot, being of the num 
ber of the twelve." 

These facts tend to prove that Judas was 
not a devil from the beginning of his con- 
nection with Christ ; the fair conclusion is, 
that he fell. Anotlier clear case of aposta- 
cy is given by Paul, 1 Tim. i. 19, 20 : 
" Holding faith and a good conscience ; 
which some having put away, concerning 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



169 



faith have made shipwreck ; of whom is 
Hymeneus and Alexander." 

Here Paul declares that some had made 
shipwreck of faith, by which apostacy must 
be meant. The apostle then names two of 
the leaders in this apostacy, Hymeneus and 
Alexander. Both of these persons are men- 
tioned in his second Epistle, Chap. ii. 17, 
18 : " And their word will eat as doth a 
canker : of whom is Hymeneus and Phile- 
tus ; who, concerning the truth have erred, 
saying that the resurrection is past already ; 
and overthrow the faith of some." 

Here another of the apostates is named, 
and the consequence is stated. The faith 
of some was overthrown. 

Chap. iv. 14, 15 : "Alexander, the cop- 
persmith, did me much evil : the Lord re- 
ward him according to his works : of whom 
be thou ware also ; for he hath greatly with- 
stood our words." 

The apostacy of these men and their as- 
sociates, from the true faith of the gospel, is 
undoubted. 

Kev. ii. 4, 5 : " Nevertheless I have some- 
what against thee, because thou hast left thy 
first love. Eemember therefore from whence 
thou art fallen ; and repent and do thy first 
work ; or else I will come unto thee quick- 
ly, and will remove thy candlestick out of 
his place, except thou repent." 

^That the members of this church were 
fallen cannot be denied. To say that such 
fallen ones will certainly repent and reform 
is groundless. There is no proof that they 
did repent. Moreover, the text is positive 
proof that it was a possible case that they 
should not repent. " Except thou repent," 
is language which implies that they might 
or might not repent, and if it was a possible 
case that they might not repent, then is it 
clearly possible for christians to fall so as 
to perish. It has now been proved that 
real christians may fall away and be lost ; 
and this truth being established, must en- 
tirely overthrow the doctrine of uncondi- 
tional election and reprobation. 

It has now been proved, by eight distinct 
arguments, that the doctrine of God's eternal 



decree of election and reprobation, is un- 
founded, and but one more shall be added. 

IX. The proof and arguments which 
have been adduced in support of the sup- 
posed doctrine of unconditional election and 
reprobation, are altogether insufficient to 
support such a momentous system, a theory 
so directly effecting the character of God, 
and the destiny of man. It will be sufficient 
to examine the Scriptural proofs of the doc- 
trine in this place, and that only in regard 
to men, leaving the asserted election and 
reprobation of angels out of the argument. 

It is taken for granted, in this examina- 
tion, that the General Assembly has cited 
the clearest and strongest texts in support 
of the doctrine of election and reprobation, 
as quoted above, from their confession of 
faith. The following are the texts which 
they have cited. 

Kom. ix. 22, 23 : " What if God, willing 
to show his wrath, and to make his power 
known, endured with much long-suffering, 
the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. 
And that he might make known the riches 
of his glory on the vessels of mercy which 
he had afore prepared unto glory." 

In order to come to a right understanding 
of every text, it is necessary to inquire 
what the subject is, of which the writer is 
treating. On this text it may be remarked, 

1. The apostle is not treating of personal 
and individual election to eternal life. This 
was entirely foreign to his theme, and hence, 
the text proves nothing in regard to the 
subject. 

2. The apostle was treating of the origi- 
nal election of the Jews, as a nation, and 
of their present rejection, and of the call or 
election of the Gentiles. The great design 
of God, from the beginning, was to make 
the Jews his peculiar people, and through 
them, prepare the way, and introduce the 
Saviour, and then open the door of equal 
religious privileges to the Gentile world, 
and make them equal to the Jews. To 
this the Jews objected, and, no doubt, many 
rejected the gospel who would have em- 
braced it, but for the fact that it offered 



170 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



salvation to the Gentiles, on the same terms 
that it offered to save them. In view of 
these circumstances, the apostle wrote, and 
in this light is his language to be con- 
strued. 

3. To illustrate this subject, and to jus- 
tify God in the premises, the apostle says 
what he does in this chapter. 

To illustrate the subject, he appeals to 
the choice of Jacob over Esau, which had 
nothing to do with personal election to 
eternal life, but the choice of one nation or 
family above another, as a preparatory 
means of bringing in the Saviour and intro- 
ducing the gospel. The apostle appeals to 
the case of Pharaoh, and under this head, 
the text occurs which is under consideration. 
The apostle brings the punishment which 
God inflicted upon Pharaoh and his people, 
to bear directly upon the case of the unbe- 
lieving Jews, to show that God will be just 
in their overthrow. The points in the text 
may be thus stated. 

(1.) By the vessels of wrath fitted to de- 
struction, is meant the Jews, who were al- 
ready rejected and were soon to be destroyed. 
God had not fitted them for destruction, but 
they had fitted themselves by their sins? 
their rejection of the Saviour and of the 
gospel, and by their abuse of all the divine 
mercies. If ever a nation deserved the divine 
wrath, it was the Jews, and if ever a nation 
corrupted itself, and fitted itself for destruc- 
tion, the Jews did that very thing. 

(2.) God endured these vessels of wrath, 
fitted for destruction, with much long-suffer- 
ing. The idea is, he bore with them a great 
while, after they were ripe for destruction, 
instead of destroying them so soon as they 
were fit, so soon as they deserved to be de- 
stroyed, 

(3.) God had a very important end to se- 
cure by bearing with the Jews so long. It 
was two-fold. 

First, to make his ^\Tath and power 
known. By bearing so long, and selecting 
the time he did for the fall of the Jews, he 
made the stroke of his wrath, and justice of 
proceedure more visible. 



Secondly, by this course he made " known 
the riches of his glory on the vessels which 
he had before prepared unto glory." 
Who these were, we learn from the next 
verse. " Even us, whom he hath called, not 
of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles." 
Thus was the riches of God's grace and 
glory generally magnified, by the long-suffer- 
ing with which he bore with the wicked 
nation of the Jews. The opening of the 
gospel door to the Gentiles, they made a 
reason for rejecting it, and God made it the 
occasion and time to make an end of the 
Jewish nation and polity, by a stroke of his 
vengeance. God bore with thera until he 
had gathered a gospel church from both 
Jews and Gentiles, which were the vessels 
of his mercy. How much more was both 
God's justice and grace magnified, by bear- 
ing with the wicked Jews, until they perished 
by their opposition to the extension of his 
grace to the Gentile world. 

Dr. McKnight, though a Calvinist, under- 
stands these verses in the same sense, and as 
having no reference to individual election to 
eternal life, or to individual reprobation. 
His comment is as follows : 

Yet not to rest the matter on God's 
sovereignty, if God, willing to show his 
wrath for the abuse of privileges bestowed, 
and to make known his power in the pun- 
ishment of such wickedness, hath upheld, 
with much long-suffering, the Jews, who, 
because they are to be destroyed, may be 
called vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, 
where is the fault? And what fault is 
there, if God hath long preserved these ves- 
sels of wrath for this other purpose ; that 
he might make known the exceeding great- 
ness of his goodness on the objects of his 
favor, whom, by his dealing with the Jews, 
he had before prepared for the honor of 
becoming his people?" 

There is, then, not the slightest reference, 
to the doctrine of an eternal decree of per- 
sonal election and reprobation. 

Eph. i. 4, 5, 6 : " According as he hath 
chosen us in him before the foundation of 
the world, that we should be holy, and 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



171 



without blame before him in love : having 
predestinated us unto the adoption of chil- 
dren by Jesus Christ to himself, to the 
praise of the glory of his grace." 

This is undoubtedly regarded as the 
strongest text in the New Testament, and 
yet it is only by overlooking the leading de- 
sign of the apostle, that it is made to relate 
to the subject. The apostle is not treating 
of personal and individual election, and 
hence his sense is perverted, when the words 
are applied to this subject. The subject is 
the constitution of the Gospel church of 
converted Jews and Gentiles, and not as 
under the former dispensation of the natu- 
ral seed of Abraham. This is the election, 
all believing Jews and Gentiles are elected 
to the adoption of children, to constitute 
the one universal Gospel church, without 
distinction of race, and without circumcis- 
ion, to the praise of the glory of his Grace. 
By pronouns, " we," and " us," the apostle 
means the Jewish converts, who constituted 
the first Gospel church, and by " ye," he 
means the Gentile converts, who were after- 
wards called by the preaching of the word, 
" That we should be to the praise of his 
glory who first trusted in Christ. In whom 
ye also trusted after that ye heard the word 
of truth, the Gospel of your salvation." 
Yerse 12, 13. Here is the union of two 
elements of which the Gospel church was 
composed, not by a personal election, but 
by the choice of both Jews and Gentiles in 
the place of the Jews, who alone had been 
God's People. This, the apostle affirms, 
was God's purpose from the beginning, 
thus to call the Gentiles, and the end he 
asserts to be, " that in the dispensation of 
the fullness of time, he might gather togeth- 
er in one, all things in Cln^ist, both which 
are in heaven and which are in earth." 
This view the apostle more fully illustrates 
in the next chapter, which is a continuation 
of the same subject. In the following quo- 
tation, the words in brackets are added to 
make the sense clear. 

" But now, in Christ Jesus, ye [Gentiles] 
who were far off, are made nigh by the blood 



of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath 
made both one, and hath broken down the 
middle wall of partition [between Jews and 
Gentiles] ; having abolished in his flesh the 
enmity, even the law of commandments 
contained in ordinances ; for to make in 
himself of twain one new man, so making 
peace : and came and preached peace to 
you [Gentiles] which were afar off, and 
them that were nigh, [the Jews.] For 
through him, we both [Jews and Gentiles,] 
have access by one spirit unto the Father. 
Now, therefore, ye [Gentiles] are no more 
strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens 
with the saints, and of the household of 
God." This household of God is the one 
Gospel church, and the election is not of 
individuals, whereby others are reprobated, 
but all believers among both Jews and 
Gentiles are elected to membership in this 
one Gospel church. God always designed 
this, and how much more does this redound 
" to the praise of the glory of his grace," 
than would a personal election of a few, 
carrying with it the reprobation of the 
greater portion of mankind to eternal 
damnation, without the possibility of their 
being saved ? On the clause which asserts 
that the number elected and reprobated, is 
so definite and certain, that it can neither 
be increased or diminished, the following 
references are made. 

2 Tim. ii. 19 : " Nevertheless, the foun- 
dation of God standeth sure, having this 
seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his." 

The text asserts a simple fact, which no 
believer in Christianity denies, namely : 
that God knows his own children. It is 
just as true if the doctrine of election be 
false, as it is if that doctrine be true. It 
proves nothing concerning the matter of 
election. One other text is quoted on this 
point as follows : 

John xiii. 18 : " I speak not of you all ; I 
know whom I have chosen. He that eateth 
bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against 
me." 

This has not the slightest reference to the 
certainty of an eternal decree of election 



172 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



and reprobation. It related to the twelve, 
and Christ not only knew which he had 
chosen, but what they were, whom he had 
chosen. But this has nothing to do with 
the certainty of election to eternal life, for 
he had chosen the twelve, and one of them 
was lost, so that the number of the chosen 
was diminished by the fall of Judas. 

The above, are the only texts quoted on 
the point, and it is clear that there are none 
which prove the point, or these would 
never have been referred to. Another 
class of texts have been adduced as proof 
that God has unchangeably predestinated 
some men to eternal death, as follows : 

Prov. xvi. 4 : " The Lord hath made all 
things for himself, yea, even the wicked for 
the day of evil." 

To make this text sustain the doctrine of 
an eternal decree of reprobation, the word 
made must be understood in the sense of 
created, and the day of evil, must mean 
eternal damnation. If this be true, then 
God made the wicked on purpose to damn 
them, and does not damn them because 
they are wicked. But common sense, and 
the original join to forbid any such con- 
struction. It vfould be more literal to ren- 
der it, " The Lord doth work all things for 
himself, yea, even preserves (or feeds) the 
wicked for the day of evil." This makes 
it assert a truth about which there is no 
dispute, and it is quite as consistent with 
the original. The Caldee renders it, " All 
the works of the Lord are for those who 
obey him ; and the wicked is reserved for 
the day of evil." 

Coverdale renders it thus : " The Lord 
doth all things for his own sake ; yea, and 
when he keepeth the ungodly for the day of 
wrath." Some understand the sense of the 
text to be, that God prepares the wicked 
to be used by him in the day of evil, as he 
uses one wicked nation to punish another. 
Any one of these senses, is better than the 
one which would represent God as creating 
rational beings for no higher end than to 
pour upon them his eternal wrath. 

Matt. xi. 25, 26 : " At that time Jesus, 



answered and said, I thank thee, Father, 
Lord of heaven and earth, because thou 
hast hid these things from the wise and 
prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 
Even so. Father ; for so it seemed good in 
thy sight." 

This does not contain the slightest proof 
of that supposed eternal and horrible de- 
cree of reprobation. 

1. By the wise and prudent, is meant the 
learned Scribes and Pharisees of our Lord's 
time, who rejected him and his Gospel. 

2. By the babes, to wdiom the things 
of the Gospel were revealed, is meant, 
such as received his word, believed, and 
were enlightened and saved, who were 
mostly from the common people and un- 
learned classes, who had but little of the 
wisdom and prudence of this world. 

3. Christ did not thank the Father that 
the wise and prudent rejected him and his 
truth, but as their wicked and proud hearts 
led them to do it, by which, from God's 
very economy of grace, these things were hid 
from them, he thanked the Father that they 
were revealed to babes, to the ignorant, ; 
honest and humble inquirers after truth ( 
and salvation. Every right minded Chris- 
tian will say, amen, to Christ's declaration, 
without the slightest idea that there is 
concealed in the sentiment he approves, the 
doctrine of an eternal decree of reproba- 
tion, by which millions on millions of hu- 
man beings were consigned to hell before 
they were born, because it pleased the cre- 
ator to make them for hell torments. How 
such a text can be quoted by a Christian 
mind, to prove such a doctrine, can be ac- 
counted for on no other principle, than that 
the simplicity of the Gospel is hid from 
some who think they are wise and prudent. 
Rom. ix. 17, 18, 21, 22, is referred to in 
this connection, but it has been sufficiently 
explained in preceding remarks. 

2 Tim. ii. 20 : " But in a great house 
there are not only vessels of gold and silver, 
but also of wood and of earth, and some to 
honor and some to dishonor." This is true 
of some o-reat houses, but how the fact 



GHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEiyiENT. 



173 



proves that God, from all eternity, passed 
by some men and ordained them to eternal 
death, is not easy to see. That Paul did 
not mean to teach that some men are ren- 
dered vessels of dishonor, by an eternal and 
unchangeable decree is certain, from what 
he says in the very next verse. " If a man 
therefore purge himself from these, he shall 
be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet 
for his master's use, and prepared unto eve- 
ry good work. The whole is made to turn 
on the conduct of the person, and not on an 
eternal decree, which unchangeably settles 
both character and destiny. 

Jude 4 : *' For there are certain men 
crept in unawares, who were before of old 
ordained to this condemnation." It is very 
remarkable that learned men should cite 
such texts, to prove such an awfully solemn 
doctrine, as the reprobation of men from 
eternity, to eternal damnation. There is 
not the slightest allusion to an eternal de- 
cree. The expression, " before of old," does 
not refer back to eternity, but only to the 
times covered by the history of the Old 
Testament, and the sense of the text is, that 
the corruption and punishment of the per- 
sons named were foretold, or written before. 
The Greek word prographo, here rendered 
" who were before ordained" simply means 
" written before," or " before written." The 
word is compounded of pro, before, and 
grapho, to write, and the sense is, that the 
matters in question were before written of 
those men named. The word occurs in 
but three other texts in the New Testa- 
ment. In Eom. XV. 4, it occurs twice, thus, 
" Whatsoever things were written afore 
time, were written for our learning." 
Gal. iii. 1 : " Before whose eyes Jesus Christ 
hath been evidently set forth, crucified among 
them." 

Here the word is rendered, " hath been 
evidently set forth," which could not be 
done by an eternal unwritten and unseen 
decree, but which might be done by word of 
mouth in preaching the Gospel, or by a writ- 
ten epistle. 

The only other text in which the word 



occurs, is Eph. iii. 3 : '' How that by reve- 
lation, he made known unto me the mys- 
tery, as I wrote afore in few words." Here 
the word is rendered " wrote afore.'' 

Dr. McKnight renders the above thus : 

" Who long ago have been before written 
to this very condemnation." 

His comment runs thus : 

"For certain false teachers have come 
into the church privily, that is, under the 
mask of being inspired, who long ago, in 
what is written concerning the lascivious 
Sodomites, and the rebellious Israelites, have 
been foretold, as to suffer this very punish- 
ment." 

1 Peter ii. 8 : " And a stone of stumb- 
ling, and a rock of offence, even to thera 
which stumble at the word, being disobedi- 
ent : whereunto they were appointed." 

This does not intimate that the per- 
sons named were the subjects of an eternal 
decree of reprobation. The only point that 
can be made out of it, is that they were 
appointed to the disobedience laid to their 
charge, but this is unfounded. The sense is 
not, that they were appointed to be disobe- 
dient, but that they were disobedient in re- 
gard to matters or duties to which they 
were appointed. They violated the trust 
committed to them. Dr. McKnight, trans- 
lates the clause thus : " The disobedient 
stumbled against the word, to which verily 
they were appointed." 

In his note, he says, " In our Bible, the 
translation implies that the disobedient men 
were appointed to be disobedient ; but the 
original does not convey that idea, for the 
words in construction stand in this manner : 
The disobedient stumble against the word, 
to which verily they were appointed." This 
makes the sense plain. 

They were appointed to the word, and be- 
ing disobedient to it, they stumbled against 
the word to which they were appointed, and 
fell. 

All the texts have now been examined, 
which are cited on the particular points of 
the confession of Faith which we have quo- 
ted, and it would be fair to take it for grant- 



174 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



ed that tlie strongest texts have been pro- 
duced, and that if the doctrine of election 
and reprobation, by an eternal decree, is not 
found in them, it is not found in any other 
texts. 

It may be well however, to notice a few 
other texts which are often pressed into the 
service of the doctrine of election, and rep- 
robation. 

2 Thes. ii. 13 : " God hath from the begin- 
ning, chosen you to salvation through sancti 
fication of the Spirit and belief of the truth.' 

The doctrine under consideration is, that 
"God from all eternity elected some men 
This text cannot therefore refer to that elec- 
tion, for these were chosen at a later period 
only " from the beginning." 

This cannot mean from all eternity, for 
eternity had no beginning. 

" The beginning," here means from the 
first of the preaching of the Gospel among 
them. The true sense is, that from their 
first reception of the Gospel, they had given 
evidence of the genuineness of their call 
and the soundness of their conversion, hav- 
ing showed no symptoms of apostacy as 
many others had. 

The manner too, in which they are said 
to have been chosen to salvation, is very de- 
cisive against the idea of its having been 
done " from all eternity." They were " cho- 
sen to salvation through sanctification of 
the Spirit, and belief of tlie truth." They 
were sanctified by the Spirit and believed 
the truth when Paul first preached the Gos- 
pel in that place, and then were they cho- 
sen to salvation, 

1 Peter i. 2 : " Elect according to the 
foreknowledge of God the Father, through 
sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, 
and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." 
This text furnishes the most conclusive evi- 
dence against the supposed election from all 
eternity, by the decree of God. 

1. They are said to be elected according to 
the foreknowledge of God, which proves 
that the election was foreknown before 
it took place, and hence they were not elect- 
ed " from all eternity." 



2. Their election is said to have been 
through sanctification of the Spirit, and 
hence it did not and could not have taken 
place until the time of the sanctifying ope- 
rations of the Spirit upon their hearts. 

3. Their election was " unto obedience," 
Obedience is not the object of the election, 
but the result, as it follows the sanctifying 
work of the Spirit, through which the elec- 
tion takes place. It is clear, therefore, that 
their election can date no further back 
than the commencement of their obedience. 

4. They were elected " unto the sprinkling 
of the blood of Jesus Christ." The sprinkling 
of the blood of Christ, was not the object of 
their election, but in connection with the 
Spirit, was the means of their sanctification 
through which they were elected. Now, as 
the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, is al- 
ways and only apprehended by faith, their 
election could not have taken place before, 
but must have taken place at the time they 
exercised faith. This is a clear and true ex- 
position of the doctrine of Gospel election, 
and here the subject may be dismissed. 

The point gained in this section is this ; 
it has now been proved that the application 
of the atonement is not limited by any sup- 
posed decree of election and reprobation. 

SE CTION V. 

The Atonement is not limited in its Applica- 
tion, by any supposed Influence of the 
ForehiGivledge of God. 

The whole system of foreordination, and 
election, and reprobation, have sometimes 
been made to depend upon God's foreknow- 
ledge. 

The argument is, that God absolutely 
knew, from all eternity, just how each hu- 
man being would act, just who would be 
saved and who would be lost, who would be- 
lieve in Christ and who would not, and as 
God cannot be disappointed, no person can 
act differently from what he does act, and 
none nho are saved could be lost; and none 
who ;„re lost could be saved. 

In reply to this view, it may be urged, 



CHAP. YIL] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



175 



I. The foreknowledge of God cannot be 
urged as proof of the doctrine of foreordina- 
tion or divine decrees, since there is no ne- 
cessary connection between them. Decrees 
cannot be made to stand upon foreknowl- 
edge, because their existence does not ne- 
cessarily follow from the existence of fore- 
knowledge. This shall be made plain. 

1. To say that God has decreed all things, 
because he foreknew what would come to 
pass, is to admit that foreknowledge brings 
nothing to pass. If the fact of foreknowl- 
edge brings everything to pass, by an un- 
erring and irresistible necessity, the supposed 
decree upon the back of it brings nothing to 
pass, and is useless. If knowledge brings 
all events to pass, to say that God has de- 
creed them because he foreknew them, is to 
say, in effect, that God has decreed that 
they should come to pass because they were 
sure to come to pass before he decreed it, 
that he made them sure by a decree, because 
they were sure without his decree. If the 
foreknowledge of God brings everything to 
pass, why introduce the decree ? If the de- 
cree brings everything to pass, why argue 
from the foreknowledge? Just prove the 
existence of the decree, and the question is 
settled. The truth is, it is so plain that fore- 
knowledge, however perfect, has no execu- 
tive power in itself, and brings nothing to 
pass, that resort is had to the doctrine of 
decrees, to make the argument sure, as fore- 
knowledge does not make it sure. If, then, 
it does not follow that God has decreed 
everything that comes to pass, because he 
foreknew what would come to pass, so it 
may be said, 

2. God cannot be said to know all that 
will come to pass, because he has decreed 
it. It is admitted that God knows all 
that comes to pass, and always knew it, 
but to say he knew it because he has de- 
creed it, is to say that he did not know it 
until he decreed it. If so, God formed his 
decrees in ignorance, and the act of decree- 
ing gives birth to his knowledge of future 
events. This cannot be, ami if he neither 
decreed events because he knew they would 



come to pass, nor knew them because he de- 
creed them, then there is no necessary con- 
nection between foreknowledge and decrees, 
and no argument can be founded upon the 
one concerning the other. 

II. The foreknowledge of God can have no 
possible influence upon moral agents to con- 
trol their conduct, or in producing one class 
of actions more than another. 

1. This follows from the nature of knowl- 
edge, God's foreknowledge is his perfect con- 
ception of all events, or sight of all events 
as they take place, this conception or sight 
having always been present to the infinite 
mind. There is, in this knowledge, no 
executive power ; knowledge is not an exe- 
cutive attribute. It is not knowledge that 
effects what God himself does, it only de- 
termines what is proper to be done, but it 
is his power and not his knowledge that 
does it. Much less, then, does the know- 
ledge of God exert a power upon human 
minds to cause them to act. God knows or 
sees what moral agents will do, but if he in- 
fluences them to do it, or in any way causes 
them to do it, that must be an act of his 
powder, and not of his knowledge. If such 
divine executive action can be proved in 
regard to all the actions of all moral agents, 
the point will be gained ; but that is another 
subject, and has nothing to do with the ques- 
tion of foreknowledge. 

2. God's perfect foreknowledge is not the 
cause of the actions of moral agents, but 
their actions is the cause, not of his power 
to know, but of the fact that his knowledge 
is what it is in regard to their actions. His 
knowledge of their actions arises from the 
fact of their actions, not the fact of their ac- 
tions from his knowledge. Therefore, when 
we see the actions of moral agents, it is 
legitimate to affirm that God knew they 
w^ould act so, because they do so act, but it 
is not legitimate to affirm that they act so 
because God knew they would. As the 
knowledge of God is perfect, he must know 
things just as they are, certain or conting- 
ent, necessary, or merely possible. Now, 
the fact in the case is, the sinner, who shall 



176 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



be finally lost, is a raoral agent, and might 
do differently from what he does and be 
saved ; and if so, God knows this as a thing 
possible. Now, if the sinner were to do 
differently from what he does and be saved, 
still there would be no disappointment in 
the divine mind ; for, as the perfect knowl- 
edge of God arises from a view of the facts, 
and not the facts from his knowledge, 
were the acts and end of the sinner differ- 
ent, the knowledge of God on these points, 
would be different. Thus, we plainly see, 
that the knowledge of God can have no in- 
fluence in producing events, while we see 
equally plain, how events, growing out of the 
moral agency of man, might be different 
from what they are, and still be in accord- 
ance with the foreknowledge of God. 



SECTION VI. 

The Atonement is not limited in its Appli- 
cation, by any want of moral power, 
or any moral inability, whereby Sinners 
are rendered incapable of complying 
with the conditions upon which its Bene- 
fits are offered. 

A class of theologians, who shrink from 
the stern and rugged features of eternal, 
absolute and unconditional election and rep- 
robation, hold views, which if true, must as 
certainly conduct every member of the hu- 
man family to the same destiny, without the 
possibility of a different result. They ad- 
mit that Christ died for all, that the atone- 
ment is sufficient to save all, and that God 
invites all, and is willing all should come 
and be saved. 

All this they preach, and pour it over 
their pulpits upon their hearers, with as 
much earnestness as they would if they 
really believed God's economy of grace im- 
partial, and that God is as desirous that all 
should be saved as he is that a part should. 
But they hold, at the same time, that while 
man has all the natural ability to repent 
and obey the Gospel, there is in the case of 
all sinners a moral inability, consisting of a 



perverseness of will, which renders it cer- 
tain that no sinner ever will accept of the 
Gospel offer of salvation, so that all would 
be lost, if left to those common influences 
of the Gospel and Spirit which are brought 
to bear upon all men. In these circumstan- 
ces, they hold that God, by a special influ- 
ence of his Spirit, calls and saves a part, 
by a power which would save all, if exerted 
to the same degree upon all, but which is not 
exerted upon all. They insist that all men 
are guilty, and that the non-saved are justly 
damned because they have a natural ability 
to repent and believe and obey the Gospel, 
and that it is at the same time, certain that 
none ever will repent and be saved, only 
such as God calls by this supposed special 
call, because they have no will to accept of 
salvation on the terms of the Gospel. They 
insist also, that as all by the perverseness of 
their own wills, reject the offers of salvation 
and deserve to be damned, God is in no 
sense unjust, because he comes in with his 
power and saves a part. 

This is now perhaps the theory most com- 
monly advocated by Calvinistic divines, and 
it is believed to be fairly and clearly stated 
above. To meet and refute it, in its prin- 
cipal points, will require some patient labor 
on the part of both writer and reader, which 
it is trusted will not be wanting. 

I. The theory in regard to the aspects 
effecting the moral rectitude of the govern- 
ment of God, is subject to all that has been 
or can be urged against election and repro- 
bation, by an eternal and absolute decree. 
The design of the theory is, to escape the 
consequences charged upon the predestina- 
rian election system, which makes the dam- 
nation" of sinners depend, not upon their sin, 
but upon the eternal purpose or decree of 
God, which secures both their sin and dam- 
nation. But it will be seen that the re- 
sponsibility can never be avoided, while the 
end is so certainly reached. 

1. It makes the damnation of sinners de- 
pend upon the will of God, they are damned 
because God prefers to have them damned. 
The case is just this, all are sinners, all de- 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



Ill 



serve to be damned, and all would be damned, 
if God did nothing for those who are saved, 
more than he does for those who are lost. 
They are all alike, and God steps in and 
saves a part, and leaves the rest to perish. 
Is it not clear then, that the saved are saved 
because God wills it, and that the lost are 
lost because God wills it. When God, who 
has equal power to save all, exerts a power 
to save a part, which he does not exert to 
save the rest, it furnishes the clearest proof 
that God wills that part shall be saved and 
that part shall be lost. Those whom God 
saves, he wills should be saved, and those 
whom he leaves to perish, he wills should 
perish. But it will be said the sinner wills 
to reject the offer of salvation. True, but 
all sinners will to reject the offer of salva- 
tion, and God changes the will of a part, 
and does not change the will of the whole, 
and as he has equal power to change the 
wills of all, this fact proves that he wills 
that part shall be saved, and that part shall 
be lost. What does it avail to say that 
sinners will to reject the offer of salvation, 
Bince it is so clear that God wills that sin- 
ners should will as they do ? All sinners 
will to reject the offer of salvation, and God 
changes the will of a part, and does not 
change the will of all, he therefore wills that 
part should accept the offer of salvation, and 
that part should reject it. We should rea- 
son just so concerning a man's acts. Sup- 
pose two men were attempting to drown 
themselves, and a third person coming up, 
iaving power to save them both, should 
save but the one. If he could just as easi- 
ly have saved both as the one, and did not, 
we would say it was his will, his choice, that 
one should live, and that the other should 
die. God is just as able to save all as he 
is a part, in view of the theory under con- 
sideration, and yet he saves but a part, and 
lets the rest perish, whom he might just as 
easily save, therefore he wills that a part 
should be saved, and that a part should not 
be saved. It is seen then, that this theory 
clearly makes the damnation of sinners to 
depend upon the will of God, and the pre- 
12 



destmarian theory does no more. The the- 
ory which stands opposed to this, and which 
will hereafter be explained, is not liable to 
this objection, because it is based upon the 
assumption that God does all he can, con- 
sistently with the principles of his moral 
government, and the freedom of the human 
will, to save all sinners, and that as much 
is done for those who perish, as for those 
who are saved, up to the time they accept 
of the offer of salvation. 

2. It throws the aspect of insincerity 
over the whole economy of grace, and invi- 
tations of the Gospel, in regard to the un- 
saved, just as much as does the predestina- 
rian theory. 

Christ died for all, the Holy Spirit 
strives with all, and God invites and ex- 
postulates with all, and yet stops short of 
that degree of influence necessary to bring 
them within the reach of salvation. Now, 
why is all this effort, or rather, pretended 
effort to save such as are lost ? God does 
everything necessary to save them, but one 
thing, and that is, he does not exert moral 
influence enough to overcome their moral in- 
ability, consisting in the perverseness of 
their wills. This he might do if he would, 
from the fact that he does it in regard to 
others, and yet he does it not to these, and 
without it all that he does is lost, so far as 
the salvation of these morally incapable 
sinners is concerned. This certainly looks 
a little like duplicity ; as though God does 
not desire their salvation. It is perfectly 
certain that he does not desire their salva- 
tion, as he desires the salvation of others, 
for he does for others what he does not do for 
these. It looks as though God desired 
that they should perish, and yet wished to 
make the impression on the mind of the in- 
telligent universe, that he wished them to 
be saved. Suppose a man to make a feast, 
and invite many. He prepares enough for 
all he invites, and invites them all by the 
same form of words, a public and free invi- 
tation. But all are alike averse to coming, 
so that every one will reject the public in- 
vitation, and he knows this before he bo 



178 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book ir. 



gins the preparation of his feast. There is 
in every one a moral inabiHty to accept the 
call, they all freely will to reject it, but 
have no moral power to will in the oppo 
site direction. It is true they all have nat- 
ural ability to come, they have power to 
walk, and they have intellectual light 
enough to comprehend the import of the 
invitation, but their wills tend so naturally 
and freely in the opposite direction, that 
they have no power to will to come, and 
herein lies their moral inability. But the 
author of this feast, has a secret unseen in- 
fluence which he may exert over every 
one he invites, which will change the cur- 
rent of their wills. He sends out his invi- 
tations, which shows upon its face every 
mark of an earnest desire that all should 
come, and yet he accompanies a few of the 
invitations with this secret, unseen power, 
which brings them to the feast, and with- 
holds it from all the rest, which leaves them 
imder the control of their perverse wills, to 
pass on and starve for want of the feast 
which he has provided. The rules of logic 
and morals, by which a man acting thus, 
would be defended against the charge of 
insincerity and duplicity, have not yet been 
made plain to common sense, and it is not 
easy to see how it can be any more honor- 
able to God than to man. 

3. It no less annihilates human responsi- 
bility, than does the predestinarian theory 
of election and reprobation. The theory 
■proceeds upon the assumption, that in view 
■of all the circumstances and influences 
which surround man, the will is naturally 
constitutionally, and fatally wrong ; that 
it comes into existence wrong, and necessa- 
rily continues wrong, with no power in the 
universe that can set it right but God alone. 

The fact that men might act differently 
from what they do, alone can render them 
responsible for their conduct. But this 
theory assumes that the will is so pervert- 
ed, constitutionally and by nature, that 
men cannot will differently from what they 
do will, and the conclusion is that they arc 
not responsible for the manner in w^hich 



tliey will. It will not relieve the difficulty 
to say that the sinner might will differently 
if he would. It might as well be said that 
he could will differently if he did, or that he 
would will differently if he did. The diffi- 
culty lies in the fact that his will runs in 
the direction it does from the necessity of 
his nature, and that he has no power, under 
the circumstances of his being, to will dif- 
ferently, nor to will to will differently. 
What does it avail to say that he might 
will differently if he would, so long as he 
cannot will to will differently. He could 
if he ivould, but it is the would that is im- 
possible. 

If it be said that sinners might will dif- 
ferently, in the common sense of the expres- 
sion, the whole theory of moral inability is 
abandoned, and the doctrine of a special 
call, by which those who are saved are 
brought in, which call is not extended to 
those wlio are lost, is blown to the winds. 
God openly and freely calls all, and it is 
admitted that his Spirit moves upon all, 
and there is no evidence of any call beyond 
this, save the fact that some come and oth- 
ers do not. Now, if it be admitted that 
sinners, in the circumstance of their case, 
can will differently, it may be that those 
who come at God's call, do it in the exer- 
cise of their power to will differently, which 
all have, without any special call or influ- 
ence more than is extended to all sinners. 
If all sinners have power of will to accept 
and come when God calls, it can never be 
proved that those who obey the call, do not 
do it in the simple exercise of the power of 
will, which those possess who reject the 
call, and that the fact that some come and 
others refuse, is to be attributed to the 
different manner in which sinners exercise 
their power of willing under the influence 
of grace which is extended to all, and not 
to some special call or influence. If all 
this is admitted, the controvesy is at an end, 
for this is all that any believer in free will 
and free grace will contend for. If it be 
denied, on the ground that man cannot 
choose differently from what he does, then 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OP THE ATONEMENT. 



179 



is he not responsible for his choice, and the 
theory as effectually annihilates human re- 
sponsibility as does the predestinarian the- 
ory. 

The difficulty is in no sense relieved by 
the pretended distinction between natural 
and moral ability. The question is, has 
man power to comply with the conditions 
of the Gospel? The theory under review, 
answers, he has a natural ability, but there 
is a moral inability existing in the depravi- 
ty of his will. This, it is replied, is a con- 
tradiction in itself. There is no natural 
ability, or there is no moral inability, for 
both cannot exist at the same time, in regard 
to the same required action. An ability to 
perform a given work, comprises all the 
power necessary to the performance. Now, 
if there be a natural ability to comply with 
the conditions of the Gospel, that natural 
ability must comprise all the power neces- 
sary to a compliance with the conditions 
of the Gospel, and if so, no moral power or 
ability is requisite, beyond what is included 
in the natural ability. There can then be 
no moral inability, for m^oral inability can- 
not exist in regard to a performance, which 
does not require a moral ability. To say 
that there is a natural ability to perform 
given act, is to say that no moral ability is 
necessary, beyond what is included in the 
natural ability ; and, of course, where the 
natural ability exists, there can be no moral 
inability. To say that there is a moral in- 
ability to perform a given act, is to say that 
it cannot be performed without this moral 
ability, the presence of which is denied, by 
affirming the presence of an inability ; and 
if a moral ability is necessary to the per- 
formance of the act, there can be no such 
thing as a natural ability to perform it, 
which does not include this necessary moral 
ability ; to affirm, therefore, that there is a 
moral inability, is to affirm that there is no 
natural ability to perform the act. It is 
clear therefore, that to affirm that there is o 
natural ability and a mora^ inability, at the 
same time, is to affirm a contradiction. It 
is to affirm that there is an ability, and that 



there is not an ability at the same time. 
Nor can the difficulty be obviated by affirm- 
ing that men are at fault for the perverse- 
ness of .their wills, in view of the theory un- 
der examination. It has already been shown 
that the theory is based upon the assump- 
tion, that the will is naturally and consti- 
tutionally so depraved as to render it impos- 
sible that it should go in any other direc- 
tion than it does. For this natural and con- 
stitutional depravity of will, the sinner can- 
not be to blame. It has not been produced 
by his bad conduct, but his bad conduct has 
been produced by it. It is admitted to be 
the result of the fall, of the sin of Adam, 
for which sinners are no more responsible 
than a son is now responsible for the sin of 
his father, which may be his misfortune, but 
cannot be his crime. Adam might have 
been justly cut off for his sin, without a Sa- 
viour, in w^hich case his race would have 
been cut off in him, and the offender alone 
would have suffered the punishment. But 
God provided a Saviour, by which Adam 
was spared to propagate his kind, and a 
stream of depraved humanity issued from 
him. All human beings are now introduced 
into existence, with this perverseness of will, 
which is affirmed to amount to a moral in- 
ability to accept of God's offer of salvation. 
This view charges God with sparing Adam, 
after his life was justly forfeited, and allow- 
ing him to propagate a race of descend- 
ants, without making an adequate provis- 
ion for their recovery from the consequen- 
ces of his sin. It is of no use to talk about 
a universal atonement, of calls and invita- 
tions extended to all, so long as these pro- 
visions fail to reach the perverseness of the 
will which they-have inherited from Adam, 
which is an element of their moral nature, 
not produced by themselves, and which 
amounts to a moral inability. This per- 
verseness of will, this moral inability, is the 
result of Adam's fall, and is an obstacle in 
the way of the sinner's salvation, and ac- 
cording to the theory under review, it is 
the only obstacle in the way of the salva- 
tion of all that perish. For the removal 



180 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



of this difficulty in the way of the sinner's 
salvation, no adequate Gospel remedy is ap- 
plied, in the case of those that perish. If 
it be allowed that God exerts a moral in- 
fluence upon the minds of sinners, sufficient 
to counterbalance the natural wrong ten- 
dency of their wills, so that the course of 
sinners does not necessarily depend upon the 
natural wrong tendency of the will, nor yet 
upon the influence which God exerts, but 
upon the self-determining power of the will, 
which is UQW rendered free to act between 
these two moral forces, then the whole the- 
ory of a moral inability, is given up. If 
this state of things is not admitted, then it 
follows that God has provided no adequate 
remedy for the consequences of Adam's sin, 
for nothing short of a moral influence, in 
some way exerted upon the sinner's mind, 
sufficient to enable him to overcome the nat- 
ural force of his depraved will, can be an 
adequate remedy for this consequence of 
Adam's sin, and tlie conclusion is that sin- 
ners perish, not for the guilt of what they 
do, but as the necessary consequence of what 
Adam did six thousand years before they 
were born. 

The subject is very fruitful, and would 
admit of the introduction of other objec- 
tions, and of a more extended elaboration of 
the points which have been treated, but 
enough has been said to show that the 
theory of a natural ability to convict sin- 
ners of wrong, and to justify the divine ad- 
ministration on one hand, and of a moral in- 
ability, to secure the signer's certain damna- 
tion on the other, subjects the divine adminis- 
tration to all the objections that have always 
so terribly pressed the theory of election and 
reprobation by an eternal decree. 

II. The theory under review is clearly 
untrue, when examined in the light of the 
evidence for and against it. 

1. It is not true that man has a natural 
ability to do all that God's holy law re- 
quires of him. If it be asked, at this point, 
how man can be accountable or to blame, 
for not doing all that God's law requires of 
him, if he has not a natural ability so to do ? 



The answer is, he is guilty because he has 
an ability to do, but it is denied that it can 
hB properly called a natural ability. The 
character of this ability shall soon be ex- 
plained. If man has a natural ability to do 
all that God's law requires, then he is not 
naturally depraved, and his powers must be 
unimpaired by the fall. It would require 
all the powers of humanity in an unlapsed 
state, to meet the entire claims of God's 
law, and hence the lapsed powers of the 
same humanity cannot meet the claims of 
the same law. To say that man has a 
natural ability in a lapsed state, to do all 
that the law requires, on the ground that 
the law requires less of humanity in a lapsed 
state, than in an unlapsed state, is to say, 
that the law of God abates to suit its claim 
to the waning powers of its subjects, as 
they descend in depravity and impair their 
powers. This cannot be, for the whole 
plan of redemption contemplates no abate- 
ment of the claims of the law, but proposes 
to sustain the honor of the law by the 
atonement, as a substitute for the sinner's 
death, and by securing that renewing grace 
by which sinners are again elevated to the 
high and holy claims of the law. 

A natural ability must be an ability 
possessed by man in himself, without super- 
natural aid, or the influence of divine grace. 
Such an ability a fallen being cannot have. 
Such a natural ability, if it exist, must em- 
brace the power to reverse the natural bent 
of the will to evil, and direct it to all that 
is right and holy. Such is not man's condi- 
tion, and such is denied to be his condition 
by the advocates of the theory under review, 
when they affirm that there is a moral ina- 
bility, consisting in the perverseness of the 
will. 

2. It is not true that there is pertaining 
to man, a moral inability to comply with 
the conditions of the Gospel. The will is 
admitted to be depraved, so that man, from 
the tendency of his own depraved moral con- 
stitution, always wills wrong, and this, un- 
der other circumstances, would constitute an 
inability to will right ; in the circumstances 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



181 



of the sinner, it does not. God exerts a! 
moral influence upon sinners in opposition 
to the tendency of the will to that which is 
wrong, and if this is as great, or greater 
than the influence of depravity, then it must 
be as easy for sinners to will right as to will 
wrong. Now, it is admitted that God does 
act upon the minds even of those who are 
lost ; he enlightens their understandings, he 
awakens their consciences, and quickens 
their moral sensibilities, and moves them 
powerfully to forsake sin, and turn to that 
which is right. This God does only in a 
degree which is consistent with man's moral 
agency, or the freedom of his will. There 
is admitted to be an evil moral influence 
which tends to urge man on in sin, and there 
is also admitted to be a right moral influence 
drawing him in an opposite direction, and 
it can never be proved that these are not so 
balanced as to leave the will perfectly free 
to choose and decide the destiny of the soul, 
by its own determination between these two 
moral forces. The fact that the will is 
naturally inclined to evil, with a force which 
would amount to a moral inability to will 
right, if there was no counteracting moral 
influence, does uot constitute a moral ina- 
bility, when opposed by this counteracting 
moral force. The light of truth, the voice 
of conscience, the strivings of the Spirit, 
and the attractions of heaven, and the ter- 
rors of hell, may be equal to all the moral 
force of depravity, and if so, the whole ar- 
gument in regard to a moral inability, falls 
to the ground. This view clears the divine 
administration of all the charges that are 
brought against it, in view of all the other 
theories which have been examined ; while 
it holds man to a strict and just accounta- 
biUty, making virtue virtuous, and vice 
vicious. 

The same is true, in a modified sense, of 
Christians ; they act between two moral 
forces, and though the right prevails, the 
evil is powerful, and a moral warfare is the 
result. The true Christian often has severe 
conflicts with powerful temptation, yet God 
will not suffer him to be tempted above 



what he is able to bear ; yet, who can doubt 
that Christians would often be carried away 
with temptations, which they do actually 
bear, were it not for the counteracting 
moral influence which God exerts upon the 
minds? Between these two moral forces, 
the will decides the contest by its own force 
and decisive act, as when, at conversion, it 
resolved to forsake sin and turn to God. 
No other just views can be entertained of a 
probationary state. 

It must then be regarded as settled, that 
in the light of the gracious dispensation un- 
der which sinners now live, and all the pow- 
ful influences by which they are moved to 
seek God and salvation, there can be no 
want of ability to comply with the condi- 
tions of the gospel. 

SECTION VI. 

The Atonement is not limited in its Appli' 
cation by any supposed Governing Influ- 
ence of motives, by which some are nec- 
essarily prevented from complying with 
the conditions of the Gospel. 

A class of theologians, who are deter- 
mined to have man governed by the law of 
necessity, when driven from the doctrine of 
decrees, resort to the philosophy of the 
mind, and attempt to draw from thence, what 
they fail to find in the Bible, namely, proof 
that the human will acts from necessity. 

The argument is based upon the assump- 
tion that the will necessarily acts in the di- 
rection of the strongest motive, and as mo- 
tives exist beyond the power of the will to 
create or annihilate them, the conclusion is 
reached that the will can act only as it does, 
that it is not capable, under the circumstan- 
ces, of acting differently from what it does 
act. This is but another invention to se- 
cure the end of an eternal decree of election 
and reprobation, without assuming the re- 
sponsibility of making God the direct au- 
thor of sin and damnation by an eternal 
purpose. From the fact of its metaphysical 
character, and the obscurity of the subject. 



182 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



and the circumstance that its force is made 
to depend upon assumed positions and rea- 
sonings, which have neither visible facts nor 
clear declamations of God's word for a ba- 
sis, it has misled many. In reviewing it, it 
is proper to show that it fails to evade the 
consequences chargeable upon the predesti- 
narian system ; and then by an examination 
of its logic show that it is unsound. 

I. The assumption that the human will is 
necessarily controlled by the strongest mo- 
tive, as clearly annihilates human responsi- 
bility and makes God the author of sin, and 
the sinner's damnation, as does the predesti- 
narian system. This may be established by 
a short process. 

The whole question must turn upon the 
origin and disposition of motives. 

There are but three relations which the 
mind can sustain to these motives, by which 
it is supposed to be governed. They must 
be matters of the mind's own creation and 
government, or they must be the result of 
some influence or powder, beyond the control 
of the mind, and yet other than God ; or 
they must be produced and arranged by God 
himself. There can be no evading this, be- 
cause there can be no other origin and ar- 
rangement of motives ; the propositions in- 
clude every possible source of motives. The 
first includes the human mind, the second 
includes everything but the human mind and 
God, and the third includes God, and there 
is no other source, power or influence, from 
whence motives can arise. Let them ther. 
be separately examined. 

1. Are motives produced, arranged and 
governed by the human mind itself? If it 
be admitted that they are, the whole contro- 
versy is at an end. 

The will cannot be governed by the 
strongest motive in any sense w^hich effects 
the question of moral liberty, produces any 
sort of moral necessity, or secures any cer- 
tain course of conduct and destiny, if the 
mind creates, arranges and governs the mo- 
tives in view of which it acts. To say that 
the mind is governed by motives, and that 
these governing motives are matters of its 



own creation, is to say that the mind gov- 
erns itself. 

2. Are motives produced by some power 
or influence beyond the control of the mind, 
other than God ? This cannot be allowed 
for two reasons. 

(1.) It would entirely annihilate human re- 
sponsibility. If the will is necessarily con- 
trolled by the strongest motive, and motives 
are produced and arranged by some power 
beyond the human mind, other than God, 
there is a clear end of all moral responsi- 
bility. In such case man does not govern 
himself, and God does not govern him, and 
how God can hold him to amoral accounta- 
bility cannot be understood. 

This view virtually shuts God out of the 
world, so far as the government of man is 
concerned, and leaves man the subject of 
some mysterious dark, and all controlling fa- 
tality, without power to resist it on one 
hand, and without a God to relieve him on 
the other. 

(2.) This view cannot be allowed, because, 
instead of evolving light enough to make 
itself understood, it conceals its own most 
essential proposition in utter darkness. It 
creates a governing pov/er more mysterious 
than Melchisedek, who is said to have been 
without father and without mother, and 
without beginning of days or end of life. 
If motives are not produced and arranged 
by man, nor yet by God, by what power 
and influence are they produced ? Do they 
result from nothing ? or are they the crea- 
tures of the Infidel's almighty chance ? The 
very thought is Atheistical and may be dis- 
missed without further notice. 

3. Are motives produced and arranged 
by God. This is the only ground upon 
which a professed Christian can pretend to 
stand, who asserts that the human will is 
necessarily controlled by the strongest mo- 
tive. But to admit that God produces and 
arranges all the motives that are presented 
to the human mind, and to insist at the same 
time, that the strongest motive necessarily 
controls the will, subjects the divine admin- 
istration to all the objections which have 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



183 



been urged against the predestinarian theory. 
and which have driven its advocates to in- 
vent this philosophical subterfuge. 

(1.) It makes the sin and damnation of 
the wicked depend upon the will of God, as 
clearly as does the predestinarian theory. 
God made the will in all its philosophical 
structure, and if it is necessarily controlled 
by the strongest motive, it is because God 
made it to be so controlled. Now, if God 
causes and arranges motives, he causes them 
and arranges them in a manner to execute 
his own will, and to secure his own purpose. 
If one motive is stronger than another, and 
consequently necessarily determines the will 
in its direction, it is because God made it. 
This makes the determination of the sinner's 
will as much the act of God, as the turning 
of the balance is the act of him who throws 
the heavier weight into one end of the scale, 
for the purpose of having it turn as it does. 
If God brings one motive in contact with a 
human mind stronger than all other motives, 
it is his act, and his means of determining 
the will in that direction, and it must follow 
that God wills that the human will in that 
case should be determined in the direction 
it is, unless it be said that God acts in oppo- 
sition to his own will, and defeats himself. 

When a sinner's will is determined in the 
direction of sin, and pursues it, until sin, 
being finished, bringeth forth death, it is 
because God arranged the strongest motives 
in that direction, and consequently, the sin- 
ner sins and dies because God wills that he 
should sin and die. To deny this, is to de- 
ny, either that the mind is governed neces- 
sarily, by the strongest motive, or that God 
produces and arranges motives, either of 
which is to give up the motive theory. 

(2.) This motive theory as clearly anni- 
hilates human responsibility, as does the 
predestinarian theory. The theory is, that 
the will is necessarily controlled by the 
strongest motive, while motives are originat- 
ed, arranged and balanced by God himself. 
If this be true, man is not the author of, nor 
responsible for, the determination of his 
will, any more than the balance is the au- 



thor of, and responsible for its motion, when 
the proprietor throws a heavier weight in one 
end than he does in the other. The theory 
is. that he wills necessarily, in view of the 
strongest motive, and can will in no other 
direction, while the motives are beyond his 
control, arranged and balanced by God him- 
self. The act cannot be man's in any moral 
sense, which renders him accountable. How- 
ever much intellectual light there may be 
connected with the action of the will, it has * 
no guiding and controlling influence over 
its determination ; and however much moral 
sensibility there may be excited in connec- 
tion with the action of the will, it is only 
as the creaking of the unoiled balance groan- 
ing under the weight that irresistibly turns 
it. If the will is so constituted in its nature 
and philosophy, as necessarily to determine 
it in the direction of the strongest motive, 
whatever intellectual light and moral sensi- 
bility there is connected with its motives, 
its determinations are as much a result of 
its physical nature, and as much a physical 
necessity, as when the water rushes down 
the cataract, when the steel is drawn by the 
loadstone, and when the needle points to the 
pole. Such a being cannot be morally re- 
sponsible. 

(3.) It no less throws suspicion upon, and 
gives a confused and self-conflicting view of 
the divine administration, than does the pre- 
destinarian theory. It admits that there 
are a variety of motives presented to the 
sinner's mind, some good, and some bad, 
some greater, and some less, and that these 
are all produced, arranged and controlled 
by God. The Gospel, with all its applian- 
ces, and the striving of the Spirit, are so 
many influences, so many motives to act on 
the sinner's ,will, and how does it represent 
God, who, while marshaling all these around 
the sinner, apparently to draw him from sin 
to holiness, and from hell to heaven, is made 
to keep before the sinner's mind, another 
class of motives, which as certainly and 
irresistibly draw him onward in sin and 
towards hell, as the river flows towards the 
ocean. 



184 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



Again, what contradiction and conflict 
does this view involve in the divine govern- 
ment ? There are motives opposed to mo- 
tives, tending in opposite directions, and all 
produced and arranged by God himself. It 
is impossible, and the theory must appear 
false in the light of its own consequences. 
There is no way to escape these difficulties, 
but to fall back upon the freedom of the hu- 
man will, and give up the point that the 
will is necessarily controlled by the strong- 
est motive. Allow the will to be free, to 
be a self-determining power, never acting 
without motive, but always capable of ma 
king a free choice between motives, without 
being necessarily controlled by any one, and 
all is plain and in harmony with the word of 
God, and human consciousness. Then will 
motives be seen in their true relation to the 
mind, which is not like the relation of a 
weight to a turning balance, but the rela- 
tion of reasons for action to an intelligent, 
free and morally accountable actor. Then, 
also, will motives be seen in their true rela- 
tions to the causes that produce them. All 
right motives, or motives to right action, 
will be regarded as arising directly or indi- 
rectly from God ; and all wrong motives, 
or motives to wrong action, will be regard- 
ed as arising from the devil, from the cor- 
rupt state of the world around us, or our 
own depraved natures, or from all these 
sources combined. Then will the divine 
government appear impartial, and man will 
be held to a just accountability for his con- 
duct. 

II. The motive theory is clearly untrue. 
Having examined it in the light of the con- 
sequences it involves, it is proper to look at 
it in the light of Scripture, reason, and 
logic. It is not true that the human will is 
necessarily determined in the direction of 
the strongest motive. 

1. There is not the slightest proof of the 
assertion, that the will is necessarily gov- 
erned by the strongest motives. The as- 
sumed fact is asserted, not as an ultimate 
truth, but as an antecedent, to which moral 
necessity is made to sustain the relation of 



a sequence. Moral necessity is the point to 
be proved, to prove which, it is affirmed that 
the will is necessarily controlled in its de- 
termination, by the strongest motive ; this 
assertion therefore, is the major proposition 
in the argument, and should be proved, and 
though it has always been denied by the 
opponents of the theory, it has always been 
taken for granted, and to the present hour 
stands unproved. By what argimient has 
any man ever proved that the will of man 
is necessarily controlled by the strongest 
motive, or that it always follows the strong- 
est motive ? The answer is, by no argu- 
ment which is valid in reason or logic. The 
fallacy lies in asserting the main point to 
be proved, as proof of the whole subject. 
Let it be tested by demanding proof in a 
single case. Any argument which can prove 
that the wills of all men, are at all times 
determined in the direction of the strongest 
motive, must be capable of being so applied 
as to prove the same fact in an individual 
case. Let the attempt then be made. 

Christ said to a certain man, who inquir- 
ed what he must do to inherit ' eternal life, 
" sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto 
the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in 
heaven." Here, the riches of this world 
and heavenly riches are two motives, each 
acting on the will to determine it in oppo- 
site directions, and the will was determined 
in the direction of the riches of this world. 
ISTow the point to be proved is, that the 
riches of this world were the strongest mo- 
tive. Of this there is not the slightest evi- 
dence, beyond the simple fact that the man 
chose the riches of this world, to the neg- 
lect of heavenly riches. This was the 
strongest motive, say the advocates of the 
theory, because the will was determined in 
its direction. But this takes for granted 
that the will is determined necessarily in the 
direction of the strongest motive, the very 
thing which should be proved. This is ar- 
guing in a circle. This was the strongest 
motive because he chose it, and he chose it 
because it was the strongest motive. Why 
was it the strongest motive ? The answer 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



185 



is, because lie chose it. But why did he 
choose it ? The answer is, because it was the 
strongest motive. There is no proof that 
the man's will was governed by the strong- 
est motive. It is said the motive in the di- 
rection of which the will was determined, 
was the strongest, because the will was de- 
termined in its direction, but this takes for 
granted, without proof, that the will is al- 
ways governed by the strongest motive, the 
very thing which is denied, and which should 
be proved. 

If it be first proved that the will is nec- 
essarily determined in the direction of the 
strongest motive, then it will follow that in 
the case under consideration, the riches of 
this world were a stronger motive than 
heavenly treasure ; or if it be first proved 
that the riches of this world constituted a 
stronger motive than heavenly treasure, 
aside from the fact that the will was deter- 
mined in that direction, then it will follow 
that in that particular case, the will was 
determined in the direction of the strongest 
motive, yet, it would not, from a single case, 
follow that it always is. But until one of 
these points be proved, without the aid of 
the other, either that the will is necessarily 
determined in the direction of the strongest 
motive, or that the motives in the direction 
of which the will is determined are always 
the strongest, which must be proved with- 
out the aid of the fact that the will is de- 
termined in their direction, no progress is 
made in the argument beyond the circle, 
which is, the will is determined in the direc- 
tion of a given motive, because it is the 
strongest motive, and that is proved to be 
the strongest motive by the fact that the 
will is determined in its direction. A man 
wills in a certain direction, because there 
lies the strongest motive, and there lies the 
strongest motive because he wills in that 
direction. Such reasoning is no reasoning 
at all, and proves nothing. 

2. The will cannot be controlled by the 
strongest motive, as a matter of necessity, 
from the fact that the mind has no power 
or faculty of estimating and determining 



the strength of motives, which the will does 
not by turns, overrule in its actual decis- 
ions. Motives have no power to act upon 
the will, except through the intellect or 
through the sensibility. The will is not a 
judging faculty, but an executive power, 
and has no capacity, aside from the intel- 
lect, and sensibility to measure or even feel 
the force of motives. Now, when it is said 
that the will is controlled necessarily by the 
strongest motive, it is implied that the 
strength of motives is estimated and deter- 
mined by some faculty of the mind, and the 
present argument is that the mind has no 
one faculty by which such estimation and 
determination can be made in regard to the 
strength of motives, whose decision the will 
does not in turn repudiate, and therefore it 
cannot be necessarily governed by what is 
declared to be the strongest motive. 

The intelligence is one mental power or 
faculty by which motives are estimated, and 
their strength determined. But the will 
does not always determine in favor of that 
object which the intelligence declares to be 
the greatest good, and consequently, the 
strongest motive. This cannot be denied. 
The will always repudiates the decision of 
the intellect, when moral obligation is vio- 
lated. If the will always executed the de- 
cision of the intelligence, there could be no 
sin and ill desert. What can God do more 
than act in accordance with his perfect in- 
telligence ? What do angels do more than 
to act in accordance with their intelligence? 
What can man do more than to act in perfect 
harmony with his intelligence ? This need 
not be argued at length, for every man 
knows that men do not always act in har- 
mony with the intelligence, and whenever 
they do not, the will repudiates the decis- 
ion of the intelligence, and rejects what the 
judgment declares to be the strongest mo- 
tive. The truth is, the will sometimes ex- 
ecutes the decision of the intelligence, and 
sometimes it repudiates it, and in all such 
cases it is not under the controlling influ- 
ence of what the intelligence declares to be 
the strongest motive. 



186 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book IL 



The sensibility is another faculty or sus- 
ceptibility of the mind, by which motives 
are estimated, and their strength deter- 
mined. The strength of the desire they 
awaken, is the measure of their power, as it 
is determined by the sensibility. But the 
will does not always determine in favor of 
that motive which awakens the strongest 
desire, and consequently w^hich the sensi^ 
bility declares to be the strongest motive. 
If the will never overrules the strongest de-; 
sire, the duty of self-denial, as taught by 
Jesus Christ, is the greatest cheat that was 
ever imposed upon the human mind. When- 
ever the will upholds a right principle, in 
opposition to strong desire, or the impulse 
of strong feeling and passion, it repudiates 
what the sensibility declares to be the 
strongest motive. 

There is but one other method by which 
the power of a motive can be determined 
by the mind, and that is by a union of the 
intelligence and sensibility on the same mo- 
tive. That they both sometimes respond 
to the same motive, is admitted, but this 
class of motives cannot be meant exclu- 
sively, when it is affirmed that the will is 
always necessarily controlled by the strong- 
est motive, for if the will is controlled by 
motives only when the intelligence and sen- 
sibility act in harmony, then the will is 
controlled by motives in but a small portion 
of its determinations, even if it were admi !•- 
ted that it is in these particular cases, where 
the intelligence and sensibility harmonize. 
It is an undeniable fact, that the intelli- 
gence and sensibility often influence the 
will in opposite directions, and that the 
w^ill sometimes determines on the side of 
the intelligence, and semetimes on the side 
of the sensibility. Tliis makes the will an 
umpire between the intellect and sensibility, 
and proves beyond a doubt, that it is not 
necessarily controlled by either, or that it 
does not necessarily follow the promptings 
of either, but that it yields to the one or 
the other, and resists the opposite ; or, as 
is often the case, it suspends its decision for 
the time being, and holds them both at 



bay. The question is settled then, that as 
the mind has no faculty by which it can 
estimate the strength of motives, which the 
will does not often overrule, it cannot be 
true that the will is always necessarily con- 
trolled by the strongest motive. 

3. The will is not necessarily controlled 
by the strongest motive, from the simple 
and undeniable fact, that it often acts 
where there is no one motive stronger than 
another, to move it to the particular deter- 
mination it makes. If the decisions of the 
will were the necessary result of a stronger 
influence called a motive, moving it in that 
direction, it could never move or act in the 
absence of such stronger motive. But the 
will does act where there is no one motive 
stronger than any other, and therefore its 
determinations cannot be the necessary re- 
suit of the presence of one. motive stronger 
than any other motive. There are cases in 
which different objects are presented, where 
the intelligence affirms that there is no 
ground of preference, that the objects are 
of equal value and interest. In such a case 
the will could make no determination in 
favor of either object in particular, upon 
the assumption that its determinations are 
the necessary result of the presence of a 
stronger motive. " I receive a letter," says 
President Mahan, " from a friend, inform- 
ing me that he has just taken from a bank, 
two notes, perfectly new and of equal value, 
that tlie one lies in the east and the other 
in the west corner of his drawer, that I may 
have one and only one of them, the one I 
shall name by return of mail, and that I 
must designate one or the other, or have 
neither. Here are presented to my intelli- 
gence two objects, absolutely equal. Their 
location is a matter of indifference, equally 
absolute." In this case there is no possible 
stronger motive for choosing of one bill 
rather than the other. There is a motive 
for choosing a bill, for choosing one or the 
other, which may be stronger than any mo- 
tive not to choose, but the act of choosing 
one rather than the other, or of deciding 
which to choose, is an act of the will which 



CHAP. VII.] 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



187 



is performed, if performed at ail, without 
the application of a stronger motive. Such 
acts of the will are common occurrences, 
every man is conscious of performing them, 
and the will performs them without any 
conscious difficulty ; it is therefore certain 
that the determinations of the will are not 
the necessary result of the 'presence of a 
motive stronger than any other motive. 

4. The intelligence and consciousness of 
every enlightened mind affirm that the de- 
terminations of the will are not always in 
the direction of what is affirmed to be the 
strongest motive. This may appear a bold 
position, but it is insisted that he who 
affirms that the will is always controlled by 
and determined in the direction of the 
strongest motive, by such affirmation, con- 
tradicts both his judgment and conscious- 
ness, and places them under the ban of a 
metaphysical sophism. 

It becomes now necessary to define what 
is meant by the strongest motive. This 
point settled, it will be proved that the 
strongest motive is often overruled by the 
will, and that its determination is in the 
direction of the weaker motive. By what 
rule are we to determine which is the 
strongest motive ? The fact that the will 
is determined in the direction of a particu- 
lar motive, cannot be admitted as proof 
that it is therefore the strongest motive, 
because, whether or not, the will is neces- 
sarily controlled by the strongest motive, is 
the main question in dispute. For a defi- 
nition of the strongest motive, an appeal 
may be made to President Edwards, who 
has given the following, " The will always 
is as the greatest apparent good." Again, 
" The act of volition itself is always deter- 
mined by that in or about the mind's view 
of an object which causes it to appear most 
agreeable." Here are two definitions which 
conflict with each other. That object 
which appears the greatest good is the 
strongest motive, according to the first de- 
finition, and that object which appears 
most agreeable is the strongest motive, 
according to the second definition. Now, 



our own judgments, and the Scriptures 
combine to declare that the greatest appa- 
rent good, and that which appears most 
agreeable are not always the same, but are 
often opposed to each other. In such case 
the will has to decide between that which 
appears the greatest good, and that which 
appears most agreeable, and as it some- 
times decides in favor of the one, and some- 
times in favor of the other, it is proof posi- 
tive that it is absolutely controlled by nei- 
ther. A clear distinction between what 
appears the greatest good, and what ap- 
pears most agreeable, is' involved in the 
choice of Moses. 

" By fiiith, Moses, when be was come to 
years, refused to be called the sou of Pharaoh's 
daughter, choosing rather to suSer affliction 
with the people of God, than to enjoy the 
pleasures of sin for a season ; esteeming the 
reproach of Christ greater riches than the 
treasures of Egypt ; for he had respect unto 
the recompense of reward." Heb. xi. 24-26. 
Here are two conflicting motives presented. 
The treasures of Egypt, and the pleasures 
of sin for a season, viewed with reference to 
the consequences which would follow, con- 
stituted one motive. The recompense of 
reward, viewed with reference to the afflic- 
tion which he must suffer with the people of 
God to obtain it, was the other motive. The 
pleasures of sin were most agreeable, but 
the recompense of reward was the greater 
good, and the will determined in favor of 
the greatest good, and against that which 
appeared most agreeable. This proves that 
to appear the greatest good, and to appear 
most agreeable are not identical, as the lan- 
guage of Dr. Edwards implies. It also 
proves that the will is not always deter- 
mined in favor of that which is most agree- 
able. This last pohit undeniably follows, 
from the duty of self-denial. Jesus Christ 
says, " If any man will come after me, let 
him deny himself, take up his cross and 
follow me," Matt. xvi. 24. He, whose will 
is determined in favor of that which is most 
agreeable, neither denies himself or bears a 
cross. It is, then, settled that the will is 



188 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 



[book II. 



not always and necessarily determined in 
the direction of that which appears most 
agreeable, on authority that will not be dis- 
puted. Now for the main question, does 
the will necessarily determine in favor of 
that which appears to be the greatest good. 
It certainly does not, if there is truth in our 
judgment, and in our consciousness, and in 
the word of God combined. If it were so, all 
enlightened minds would will in the same 
direction, on the great question of human 
destiny. The argument is based upon the 
case of such as are well informed in re- 
gard to the Gospel plan of salvation. They 
believe that there is a heaven and a hell, 
and they intellectually understand the terms 
upon which the Gospel offers eternal life. 
To such persons, apply the words of Moses. 
" I have set before you life and death, bles- 
sing and cursing : thorefore, choose life that 
both thou and thy seed may live." Deut. 
XXX. 19. Or apply the words of Christ. 
" What is a man profited, if he shall gain 
the whole world and lose his own soul ?" 
Matt. xvi. 26; Or apply the words of 
Paul. " Be not deceived ; God is not 
mocked : for whatsoever a man soweth, 
that shall he also reap. For he that sow- 
eth to his flesh, shall of his flesh reap cor- 
ruption ; but he that soweth to the Spirit, 
shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." 
Gal. vi. 7, 8. Here are presented to the 
mind, obedience to God with its result, life 
everlasting ; and sin with its consequences, 
death, the loss of the soul, a harvest of cor- 
ruption. In a word, the path of obedience 
is here presented with heaven at its end, and 
the path of sin with hell at its end. Will 
any one dare to say, that the way of sin 
with hell at its end, is, or can be to 
any enlightened sinner, " the greatest ap- 
parent good ?" Surely not. The Christian 
and the Christian minister affirm to the sin- 
ner, that the greatest apparent good lies in 
the way of obedience, ending in heaven ; and 
they assume that the sinner knows it, as a 
means of rousing his conscience and mak- 
ing him feel his folly and guilt. The sin- 
ner's personal guilt is made to depend upon 



the fact that the way of obedience with hea- 
ven at the end, is to his own mind, a greater 
apparent good, than the way of sin with hell at 
its end, which he pursues. Go and enquire of 
the sinner himself, and he will tell you that he 
understands these things, that obedience to 
God leading to heaven, is beyond all doubt 
the greatest apparent good, and that he 
knows that he ought to forsake sin, and that 
it would be for his greatest good so to do. 
The Bible affirms this, and he believes the 
Bible. His judgment affirms the same thing, 
and nothing can be to the mind the greatest 
apparent good which the judgment affirms 
is not the greatest apparent good. His 
conscience declares that obedience, leading 
to heaven, is the greatest good ; for though 
conscience deals mainly with questions of 
right and wrong, yet where the highest in- 
terests of the soul are so clearly connected 
with the right, it adds deeper thunder tones 
to the reproving voice of conscience. To 
conclude, the sinner's consciousness settles 
the whole question, beyond the power of 
contradiction. Consciousness is the knowl- 
edge which the mind has of its own states 
and operations. It relates exclusively to 
what exists or passes within the mind. 
Knowledge of facts which exist outside of 
the mind, is to be attributed to the under- 
standing or judgment, not to consciousness. 
The judgment pronounces, without a doubt, 
that the way of obedience, leading to heaven, 
presents a greater good than the way of sin, 
leading to hell. At this point consciousness 
comes in and pronounces two facts. First, 
the will is determined in the direction of the 
path of sin, leading to hell, which the judgment 
daclares is not the greatest apparent good. 
It is certain, therefore, that the will is not 
always " ai ths greatest apparent good," as 
President Edwards affirms. The second 
thing which consciousness affirms, is that 
the determination of the will in the direction 
of the way of sin, leading to hell, which is not 
the greatest apparent good, is its own free 
unrestrained determination, and that it is 
capable of a different determination at the 
same time, and in the same circumstances. 



CHAP. VIII.] 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



189 



No man ever was conscious of willing from 
necessity, and no man can be. No man 
ever was, or can be conscious of any act of 
willing, without being conscious at the same 
time, of being capable of willing differently. 
Here the argument closes, and it is believed 
that the reader will agree with the writer, 
that the human will is free, free in the sense 
of not being governed by the strongest mo- 
tive, but always freely, by its own self-de- 
termining power, chooses between motives, 
and that it is capable, at all times, of mak- 
ing a different choice from that which it ac- 
tually makes. 

All the theories have now been examined 
which have been resorted to, for the purpose 
of limiting the atonement of Christ in its 
application, and they have all been proved 
to be unsound. The conclusion is, that the 
atonement is limited in its application, only 
by the sinner's free, wilful, and wicked re- 
fusal to comply with the conditions upon 
which its benefits are offered. 



CHAPTER YIII. 

SALVATION BY GEACE EXPLAINED AND DE- 
FENDED. 



SECTION I. 

Justification by Faith — Pardon — Remission 
of Sin. 

The doctrine of justification by faith, is 
the first in order, which is practically devel- 
oped, after the atonement, in the execution 
of God's plan of salvation. 

The best method of presenting this doc- 
trine will be, first to make a clear statement 
of the doctrine itself, and then to adduce 
the Scriptural evidence in its support. 

1. Sinners are justified by God, when he 
pardons their sins, remits the punishment 
they deserve, and treats them as though they 



wQve really just, or as though they had not 
sinned. It is not to make them just or 
righteous, but to pardon them as guilty sin- 
ners, to remit the punishment they deserve, 
and to receive them into his favor and fel- 
lowship, and treat them as though they were 
ri wteous. Gospel justification is bestowed 
ujwa none but the guilty and ill-deserving. 
There are other blessings bestowed, and an 
additional work done in the sinner, concom- 
itant with justification, but they are to be 
distinguished from justification, and will be 
separately considered. 

2. Sinners are justified alone on account 
of the atonement of Christ, or on account 
of the merits of his death, as a sacrificial 
offering for the sins of men. This doctrine 
of the atonement was fully considered and 
demonstrated, in Chapter YL, to which the 
reader is referred for proof. It was there 
proved that the sinner can be delivered from 
the guilt of sin, and the punishment it de- 
serves, only by a pardon, and that such par- 
don can be granted only by virtue of an 
atonement, which atonement Christ has 
made by his sufferings, death and resurrec- 
tion. 

3. Faith is the only condition of justifi- 
cation. Faith by which we are justified, 
clearly includes both belief and trust. There 
must be the assent or persuasion of the 
mind, that the Gospel is true, that Christi- 
anity is of God, and that it reveals God's 
plan of saving sinners. 

But this is not sufficient. Many sinners 
believe this intellectually, and are not jus- 
tified. 

Indeed, St. James tells us that " the devils 
believe and tremble," but the devils are not 
thereby justified. Many sinners believe the 
Gospel as a system of salvation, without 
being saved by it, because their faith is only 
an assent of the judgment to what is true, 
without engaging the heart and reforming 
the life. 

To this belief there must be added trust 
in God, through the atonement of Jesus 
Christ, in order to constitute justifying faith. 
The belief may exist without the trust. 



190 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



[book II. 



but the trust can never exist -without the 
belief. The practical development of sav- 
ing faith is described by Paul, Eom. x. 
9, 10 : " That if thou shalt confess with 
thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe 
in thine heart that God hath raised him 
from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with 
the heart man believeth unto righteousDess ; 
and with the mouth confession is made unto 
salvation." This is a very important text 
and should be carefully considered. There 
must be the belief of the heart that God 
hath raised Jesus Christ from the dead. 
To believe with the heart, doubtless em- 
braces more than a mere conviction or 
consent of the understanding, it may be re- 
garded as embracing, 

(1.) Entire sincerity and with full pur- 
suasion of the soul, without a doubt, 

(2.) Such a belief as engages the affec- 
tions of the soul and controls the life, con- 
forming it to the claims of that Gospel 
which is thus believed. This the mere belief 
of the understanding, which devils and many 
sinners have, does not do. 

The fact that God has raised Jesus Christ 
from the dead, the thing to be believed with 
the heart, is the great central truth of 
Christianity, and hence is named by the 
apostle as implying the truth and validity 
of the whole Gospel. It clearly implies 
his death as our atoning sacrifice, as well as 
his resurrection, as our justifying Saviour 
for he " was delivered for our offences, and 
raised again for our justification." Rom 
iv. 25 : To believe that God raised Jesus 
from the dead, in the apostle's sense, is to 
believe all the glorious doctrines which are 
associated with it in the Gospel plan of sal- 
vation. These must all be believed with 
the heart, with a faith which engages the 
affections and controls the life. It must be 
such a sincere, earnest faith as ventures upon 
Christ, and rests the soul's eternal interest 
upon the merits of his death, in full confi- 
dence. It may be summed up in these few 
words. I am a lost sinner ; Christ died and 
roso again to save me ; he is able to save me ; 
he is willing to save me now ; I venture upon 



the promise ; I am saved. Such is the expe- 
rience of every sinner that comes to Christ. 
This is what Paul means when he says, " with 
the heart man believeth unto righteousness." 
The sense is, believing in such a way as to 
obtain justification, as to be pardoned and 
treated by God as a righteous person. 

There must also be the confession of the 
mouth. " With the mouth confession is 
made unto salvation." In order to justifi- 
cation, there must be a public confession of 
faith in Christ. The mouth must and will 
speak, when the heart believeth unto right- 
eousness, for " of the abundance of the heart 
the mouth speaketh.". By an attempt to 
conceal the belief of the heart, by keeping 
the mouth closed, the believing would not 
be unto righteousness, there would be a 
coming short of justification. Hence the 
truth of the remark, that those who profess 
no religion have none. But when the heart 
believes with such a faith as causes the 
mouth to confess the things believed, the ■ 
blessing of justification is received, for it is 
written, " if thou shalt confess with thy 
mouth the Lord Jesus, thou shalt be saved." 
This belief of the heart, and this confession 
of the mouth must go together, and justifi- 
cation will be the certain result. 

(3.) This justifying faith, described abcfve, 
supposes a pre-existing mental state and ex- 
ercise, called repentance. Repentance is 
often associated with faith in gospel lan- 
guage, and often urged as absolutely essen- 
tial to salvation. 

Matt. iv. 17: "Jesus began to preach, 
and to say repent ; for the Kingdom of 
Heaven is at hand." 

Mark i- 15: "The time is fulfilled, and 
the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand ; repent 
ye, and believe the Gospel." 

Luke xiii. 3 : " Except ye repent, ye shall 
all like-wise perish. " 

Act XX. 21 : " Testifying both to the Jews 
and also to the Greeks, repentance towards 
God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus 
Christ." 

From the above texts it is clear that 
there can be no salvation without repen- 



CHAP. VIII.] 



SALVATION BY GKACE DEFENDED. 



191 



tance. This does not prove that repentance 
is a condition of justification ; it results 
from the fact that a state of impenitence is 
a state of hostility to God, and that repen- 
tance is a pre-requisite to the exercise of 
faith, which is the true condition of justifi- 
cation. No impenitent sinner can believe 
with his heart unto righteousness. Eepen- 
tance is a sorrow for sin , It is described 
by Paul as a " godly sorrow that worketh 
repentance to salvation, not to be repented 
of." 2 Cor. vii. 10. 

There is in repentance a conviction of 
sin, a sense of its ill-desert, as against God, 
and an apprehension of the fearful punish- 
ment, to which it renders the sinner justly 
liable. In this state of -mind the sinner 
feels, and owns himself lost. There is noth- 
ing in this repentance meritorious, nothino 
saving in its nature, but it prepares the sin 



the heart, and this demand must be com- 
plied with, before justification can take 
place. The sinner must come to the point 
where he renounces all sin, and purposes in 
his heart to do every duty. This must be 
universal and absolute in the purpose of his 
heart, and in practice, it must come up to 
the measure of light enjoyed. This pur- 
pose must abide in the heart, and be per- 
petually carried out in the life ; every sin 
must be forsaken, and every duty must be 
performed, as sin and duty may appear in 
view of any increased degree of light, which 
may shine upon the path of progressive ex- 
perience. The justified person must continue 
to obey, in order to retain his justification. 
The moment he does what he knows to be a 
sin, or neglects what he knows to be a du- 
ty, faith, by which he is justified, lets go its 
hold upon God, and he loses his justificar 



ner to accept of Christ, as the only Saviour tion. This view stands intimately connect- 
of lost sinners. He is now cut off from ed with the renewal of the heart, in what is 



every other hope in his own view, and ac- 
cepts of the offer of salvation as tendered 
to him in the Gospel. He ventures upon 
the promise, he takes God at his word, 
" Lord thou hast promised to save all that 
come to thee in the name of Jesus Christ, 
and I come, lost and undone, to be saved 
now." God grants a free pardon, and he 
feels in his heart, 

" My God is reconciled ; 

His pard'ning voice I hear : 
He owns me for his child ; 

I can no longer fear : 
With confidence I now draw nigh. 
And Father, Abba, Father, cry." 

This is justification by faith. 

(4.) The faith by which sinners are thus 
justified, also secures the renewing and sup- 
porting influence of the Holy Spirit, where- 
by they are enabled to live a life of obedi- 
ence for time to come. There is a vital un^ 
ion between justifying faith, and all good 
works. No man can believe with the heart 
unto righteousness, or so as to obtain justi 
fication, while living in the practice of any 
known sin, or in the neglect of any known 
duty. God requires the entire surrender of 



called regeneration, which is a concomitant 
of justification, and which will be explained 
hereafter. Thus is it seen that justification, 
which is by faith alone, carries with it en- 
tire submission and obedience to God. It 
was upon this principle that St. James 
wrote, not to controvert the doctrine of jus- 
tification by faith, but to correct an abuse 
of it, and to show that it cannot exist where 
there are not works springing from it. He 
says of Abraham, " Seest thou how faith 
wrought with his works, and by works was 
faith made perfect." This is true in every 
case of Christian experience. Faith pre- 
cedes a life of obedience, and works in all 
obedience, producing the same, and by this 
obedience is faith itself made perfect. To 
say nothing about perfect faith, faith does 
not justify until it reaches a point where it 
controls the heart, and conforms the life to 
the rule of duty. St. James could have 
meant no more than that a man cannot be 
justified without works, that the faith which 
does not produce works, cannot justify, 
when he said, " Ye see hoY»^ that by works 
a man is justified, and ii .'t by fdih orJy." 
" Not by faith only," can mean nothing more 



192 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



[book II. 



nor less than, " not by faitli whicTi does not 
produce good works." James, at the same 
time, admits that Abraham was justified by 
faith, in Paul's sense of the subject, when 
he says, " And the Scripture was fulfilled, 
which saith, Abraham believed God and it 
was imputed to him for righteousness." The 
imputation of faith for righteousness, is the 
kind of justification by faith, for which 
Paul so earnestly contends, and James 
and Paul are in harmony, and the opinion 
entertained by some that they disagreed, is 
the result of a misconstruction of the fact 
that James found it necessary, more partic- 
ularly to insist that the faith which justifies, 
always produces good works, that no faith 
can save which does not produce good works, 
a fact which Paul never denied, but often 
insisted upon. 

4. Justification is an instantaneous work 
As its most essential feature is that of a 
pardon, it is necessarily instantaneous. We 
cannot conceive of a gradual pardon. If 
justification was by the merit of works, it 
might be argued that it requires time for 
the sinner to work it out, but it is by faith 
And, as there is no merit in faith, nothing 
is gained by regarding justification as grad- 
ual. As faith is the only condition of jus- 
tification, God must justify the moment true 
faith is exercised. Suppose we could con- 
ceive of a pardon as gradual, can any one tell 
how long it would take God to fully pardon 
a sinner, after he began the work ? Again, 
what would become of the sinner, if he should 
die when God had half pardoned him ? 

Having explained the leading principles 
of the doctrine of justification by faith, it is 
proper now to confirm it, by a more direct 
appeal to the word of God. 

Acts xiii. 38, 39 : " Be it known unto 
you therefore, men and brethren, that 
through this man is preached unto you the 
forgiveness of sins : and by him all that be- 
lieve are justified from all things, from which 
ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." 

Here the forgivness of sins, and justifica- 
tion, are clearly the same thing. Those who 
believe in Christ are justified from all things. 



and it is clearly made to rest upon the fact, 
that through him the remission of sins was 
preached unto them. It is clear, therefore, 
that to receive the remission of sins, and to 
be justified are the same thing. Faith is 
also made the condition of this justification. 
By him all that believe are justified, which 
implies that unbelievers are not justified. 

Eom. iii. 20-22 : " By the deeds of the 
law, there shall no flesh be justified in his 
sight, for by the law is the knowledge of 
sin. But now the righteousness of God 
without the law is manifested, being wit- 
nessed by the law and the prophets ; even 
the righteousness of God, which is by faith 
of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them 
that believe." 

In this text, Paul denies that men aro 
justified by the deeds of the law, that is, by 
works. He then declares that the righteous- 
ness of God, without the law, is manifested. 
By the righteousness of God, is meant, 
God's method of justifying, or of making 
righteous men out of unrighteous ones. 
This is declared to be " without the law," 
that is, it is without any provision of the 
law, without being regulated by the law, 
without any assistance from the law, and 
without obedience to the law, as a condition 
of justification. 

This righteousness of God, this plan of jus- 
tifying sinners, is " by faith of Jesus Christ." 
It is through faith in Jesus Christ, that this 
righteousness of God is embraced, and it is 
" unto all, and upon all them that believe." 

How this is brought about through faith 
in Christ, is more fully explained in verses 
24-26 : " Being justified freely by his grace, 
through the redemption that is in Christ 
Jesus ; whom God hath set forth to be a 
propitiation through faith in his blood, to 
declare his righteousness, for the remission 
of sins that are past, through the forbear- 
ance of God ; to declare, I say, at this time, 
his righteousness ; that God might be just 
and the justifier of him that believeth in 
Jesus." 

In this text, we have the doctrine of jus- 
tification by faith so plainly set forth, that 



CHAP. Till.] 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



193 



it is difficult to make it any plainer than 
Paul himself has made it. Observe, 

1. They are justified freely by his grace. 
Grace is undeserved goodness. They are 
freely justified, that is without merit or 
claim, or consideration on their part. 

2. This justification is, " through the re- 
demption that is in Christ Jesus." It is not 
a mere prerogative act, but an act done 
•in consideration of what Christ has done 
and suffered, as the sinner's substitute. This 
redemption which is in Christ Jesus, and 
through which God justifies sinners, is 
further explained where it is said, that God 
has " set Christ forth to be a propitiation 
for the remission of sins that are past." " A 
propitiation," that is, an atoning sacrifice ; 
for so the word signifies. This is further 
explained, and the sense made sure, when it 
is added, that it is " through faith in his 
blood," that he becomes an available propi- 
tiation for us, securing our justification. 

3. This whole plan of an atonement, or of 
setting Christ forth to be a propitiation, an 
atoning sacrifice, is that God " might be 
just and the justifier of him which believeth 
in Jesus." This clearly implies, that with- 
out the atonement, God could not justify 
sinners consistently with the claims of jus- 
tice. Faith is, through the whole, kept in 
view as the condition of receiving justifica- 
tion. 

4. The justification resulting from this 
divine economy, through faith in Jesus 
Christ, consists of a pardon. God's righte- 
ousness is declared, " for the remission of sins 
that are past, that God might be just and 
the justifier of him which believeth in 
Jesus." Thus is it plain, that to remit past 
sins, is to justify, in the apostle's sense. To 
remit sin, is to pardon the sinner, and to ex 
empt him from the punishment his sins de- 
serves. In this sense Paul clearly taught 
the doctrine of justification by faith. From 
these premises the apostle comes to the con 
elusion, in the 28th verse, " Therefore, we 
conclude that a man is justified by faith 
without the deeds of the law." 

Rom. iv. 5 : " But to him that worketh 
13 



not, but believeth on him that justifieth the 
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteous- 
ss." This text is clear and decisive. 

1. The persons justified are ungodly per- 
sons ; they are sinners guilty and ill-deserv- 
ing. 

2. They are such as work not. That is 
such as had not kept the law, for had they 
done all the works of the law, they would 
not have been ungodly. Nor did they 
work, or depend upon their works, as a 
means of justification. 

3. They simply believed on him that jus- 
fieth the ungodly ; that is God. They be- 
lieve his promise made and ratified in Jesus 
Christ, and their faith is counted for righte- 
ousness, and such are justified by faith. 

Eom. V. 1 : " Therefore being justified by 
faith, we have peace with God through our 
Lord Jesus Christ." 

This text not only proves that justifica- 
tion is by faith, but also that a state of jus- 
tification, is a state of reconciliation to God, 
and of communion with him. " Peace with 
God through our Lord Jesus Christ." 
Through him as our atonement, our propi- 
tiation, as the " one mediator between God 
and men." 

Gal. ii. 16 : " Knowing that a man is not 
justified by the works of the law, but by the 
faith of Jesus Christ, even as we have be- ■ 
lieved in Jesus Christ, that we might be 
justified by the faith of Christ, and not by 
the works of the law : for by the works of 
the law shall no flesh be justified." This 
needs no comment to make it teach the doc- - 
trine of justification by faith, and by faith' 
alone. 

There is but one m.ore point to be consid- 
ered, and that is the relation between faith 
and justification. This is a point in regard to 
which there has existed, in some minds, very- 
great confusion. 

There is no merit in believing. There is- 
nothing in the nature of faith which annuls 
or removes tlie guilt of past sin. Believing 
does not justify him who believes. It is: 
God that justifies the believer, not his faith, 
not his belief. In regard to the relation be- 



194 



SALVATION BY GEACE DEFENDED. 



[book II. 



tween faith and justification, two things 
may be affirmed. 

1. Faith is the condition upon which 
God has seen fit to promise pardon to sin- 
ners. When sinners believe in Jesus, God, 
according to his own Gospel plan, forgives 
their sins, that is, he justifies them. But he 
does it for Christ's sake, on account of what 
Christ has suffered, in whom the faith is 
centred, upon whose atonement it rests for 
salvation. 

2. True faith, when exercised by a sinner, 
is accepted by God, in the place of obedi- 
ence which the sinner should have rendered, 
but which he has failed to render. On this 
important point, let the proof be spread be- 
fore the reader. 

Kom. iv. 3 : " Abraham believed God, 
and it was counted unto him for righteous- 
ness." 

Yerse 5 : " But to him that worketh not, 
but believeth on him that justifieth the un- 
godly, his faith is counted for righteous- 
ness." 

Yerse 9 : " For we say that faith was 
reckoned to Abraham for righteousness." 

Yerse 22 : " And, therefore, it was im- 
puted to him for righteousness," 

Gal. iii. 6 : " Even as Abraham believed 
God, and it was accounted to him for right- 
eousness." 

James ii. 23 : " Abraham believed God, 
•and it was imputed to him for righteous- 
ness." 

In these texts, faith is said to be reckoned 
for righteousness, counted for righteousness, 
accounted for righteousness, and imputed 
for righteousness. The sense is the same in 
every case. The difference is only in the 
translation ; the same Greek word, logizo- 
viai, is used in the original of all these texts. 
The simple sense is that faith was accepted 
or put to the credit, for, that is, in tlie place 
of righteousness. By righteousness, obedi- 
ence to the law is meant, the state of being 
and doing right. This all men owe to God, 
but they have failed to obey, and now they 
can never obey God for the time past during 
■which they disobeyed. 



The law demands righteousness, but it is 
impossible ; the sinner cannot obey for past 
time, but he can believe, he comes to God 
not bringing the righteousness which he 
owes, but he brings faith in the merits of 
Christ's death, and God places that to bis 
credit, for or in the place of the righteous- 
ness he owes, and justifies, that is, pardons 
him, and treats him as though he was righte- 
ous, as though he had always obeyed the 
law. 

This is what is to be understood by faith 
being counted, reckoned, or imputed for righ- 
teousness. This is justification by faith, while 
the atonement of Christ is the meritorious 
ground of justification. 

SECTION II. 

Regeneration. — Tlie New Birth. 

The reader's attention is now invited to 
the great and vital subject of regeneration. 
It will not be necessary to wade through all 
the false theories of regeneration which 
have been advocated by different classes of 
errorists, but only to present a clear state- 
ment of the truth on the subject, as it is 
found in the word of God, and as felt and 
observed in deeply experienced Christians. 

I. It is proper to explain the nature of 
regeneration. 

Kegcneration is a renewal of our fallen 
nature, by the power of the Holy Spirit, 
received through faith in Jesus Christ, 
whereby the regenerate are delivered from 
the power of sin which reigns over all the 
unregenerate, so that they love God, and, 
through grace serve him with the afiections 
of the heart. 

That regeneration is all that is implied 
in the above definition, must be seen from 
but slight attention to the different terms 
employed to describe it. 

The word regeneration is used but twice 
in the New Testament, and but once ap- 
plied to the change under consideration. It 
is in Titus ill. 5 : " Not by works of right- 
eousness which v,'e have done, but accordrn;' 



CHAP. YIII.] 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



195 



to his mercy he saved us, by the washing 
of regeneration and renewing of the Holy 
Ghost." 

The Greek word here rendered regenera- 
tion, is palingenesia, which is compounded 
of palin, again, and genesis, to be, literally, 
again to be, or, to be again. This is very 
forcible, as the change restores man to a 
new spiritual life, which was lost by the fall. 
The Apostle was speaking of a work al- 
ready wrought, a change which had already 
taken place. " He hath saved us," describes 
a work already done. This work was ef- 
fected by the washing of regeneration ; that 
is such a washing as caused us again to be, 
again to exist in the image, life and favor of 
God, which were lost by the fall. The word 
washing is used in a figurative sense, per- 
haps with reference to water baptism. As 
it is by washing that a thing is made clean, 
so the purification of the heart is called the 
washing of regeneration, such a cleansing 
as makes the heart new and clean. The 
above sense of washing is confirmed by the 
expression, " renewing of the Holy Ghost." 
This proves the change to be wholly spirit- 
ual, and that the Spirit is the efficient agent 
in its accomplishment. To be regenerated, 
is, clearly, to be renewed by the Holy Ghost. 
The other terms used by the inspired wri- 
ters to describe this change, are no less sig- 
nificant. 

John i. 12, 13 : " But as many as receiv- 
ed him, to them gave he power to become 
the sons of God, even to them that believed 
on his name : which were born, not of blood, 
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will 
of man, but of God." 

Here the same change is called being born 
of God. And what is it to be born of God, 
more or less than to be renewed by God's 
Holy Spirit ? It is clearly the same thing 
as the " renewing of the Holy Ghost," and 
that is the same as the " washing of regen- 
eration." Those who are said in the text 
last quoted, to have been " born of God," 
were, thereby rendered the " sons of God." 
" To them gave he power to become the 
sons of God." As by natural birth, we are 



the sons of natural fathers, so by being bom 
of God, we are the sons of God. 

John iii. 3, 5 : " Except a man be born 
again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. 
Except a man be born of water and of the 
Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of 
God." 

Here the allusion is probably to baptism. 
To be baptised, is, probably, to be born of 
water, in the Saviour's sense. But while 
baptism is named as a new birth by water, 
it can only be figuratively, as a sign of the 
internal washing and renewal of the heart, 
by the Holy Ghost. It is the Spirit which 
renews the heart, and not the water. This 
is certain from the 6th verse : " That which 
is born of the flesh is flesh : and that which 
is born of the Spirit is Spirit." It is clearly 
a birth by the Spirit, that produces spirit- 
uality of heart and mind. It is not the 
water externally applied, but the renewing 
of the Spirit within, that saves. Christ 
joins the water and the Spirit in this great 
change, and man has no right to separate 
them. Baptism is a Christian duty, and if 
all attended to this duty, in every case of a 
new birth by the Spirit, the Avater exter- 
nally applied, would signify and witness to 
the washing of the heart by the Spirit. 
That the Saviour meant more than an ex- 
ternal washing, more than any external 
form or ceremony, or any mere change of 
opinion or outward habits of life, is certain, 
from the V\^onder his words excited in Nico- 
demus. He was familiar with forms, cere- 
monies, sprinklings and ablutions. Gentile 
proselytes were received in^o the Jewish 
communion by water baptism, and had our 
Saviour's words meant no more, all would 
have been plain to Nicodemus. But the 
renewing of the Holy Ghost, was a matter 
he did not understand. 

Should it be urged that the words of 
Christ, as understood above, still make wa- 
ter baptism essential to salvation, the reply 
is, it is no objection at all ; it is admitted, 
that as a rule, baptism is necessary to sal- 
vation. There can be no doubt that all 
the converts under the Apostle's ministry, 



196 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



[book TI. 



were baptised, nor could they have been 
saved without it. They had an inspired 
ministry, and when that ministry preached 
" Repent and be baptised, every one of 
you," there could have been no salvation 
without baptism. Baptism is still a Chris- 
tian duty, and as a rule, the performance of 
all duties is essential to salvation. Those 
who are not baptised can be saved, only on 
the same ground that persons may be saved 
who neglect other duties. The rule is that 
we must do all duties, but when the head is 
wrong, when the intellect is dark, when the 
judgment is misinformed, and the heart is 
right, a person neglecting to be baptised 
may be saved, as those whose motives are 
right but who err in judgment, may be 
saved in neglect of anything else which is 
commanded in the Gospel. 

But while all this is admitted, it does not 
follow that any can be saved without being 
born of the Spirit. There is a wide differ- 
ence between baptism by water, and the 
renewing of the Holy Ghost. Baptism by 
water, is a work which man performs ; the 
renewing of the Holy Ghost is a work 
which God performs. We may suppose 
that water baptism may be administered to 
persons who are not renewed by the Spirit, 
in which case there is no salvation from sin 
accompanying it. So we may suppose 
that the renewing of the Spirit may take 
place in those who have not yet received 
water baptism, in which case salvation 
transpires without baptism, for the renewal 
of the heart by the Spirit, is salvation itself. 
These remarks have been thus extended for 
the purpose of showing that Christ clearly 
taught the doctrine of regeneration by the 
Spirit, without teaching baptismal regener- 
ation. 

Eph. ii. 5 : " Even when we were dead 
in sins, hath he quickened us together with 
Christ." The expression, "together with 
Christ," is an allusion to Christ's resurrec- 
tion. As God raised Christ from the dead, 
so had he quickened those who were dead 
in sins. God had already quickened them 
by a moral resurrection, as he had raised 



Christ from the grave. To quicken, is to 
give life to, to cause to live. Yerse 10 : 
" For we are his workmanship, created in 
Christ Jesus unto good works." Here 
the same change is called a creation in 
Christ Jesus, and as it is "unto good 
works," it is clear that this creation is a 
renewal of the heart, so that with its affec- 
tions the subject of the change obeys God. 

Eph. iv. 24 : " And that ye put on the 
new man, which after God is created in 
righteousness and true holiness." 

Col. iii. 10 : " And have put on the new 
man, which is renewed in knowledge after 
the image of him that created him." 

These texts imply an entire moral reno- 
vation, all that is included in the definition 
given of regeneration at the opening of this 
section. In the last text, there is a clear 
allusion to the fact that man was created 
in the image of God, and he is declared to 
be renewed after this image ; regeneration is 
therefore a restoration of humanity to its 
pristine state, a recovery of what it lost 
through the fall. 

From all that has been said, it follows 
that regeneration is not a physical, but ex- 
clusively a moral change. There are no 
new powers of the mind or affections of the 
soul created, but the soul, with all its pow- 
ers and affections are renewed, and turned 
from wrong to right. There is a change 
of disposition or bent of mind. The heart, 
the mind, ceases to be " enmity against 
God," as is the carnal mind, and love to 
God, becomes the ruling passion of the soul, 
producing obedience. There is a change 
in the feelings, peace and joy fill the heart. 
There is a change of relations, the regener- 
ate become the children of God, " and if 
children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint 
heirs with Jesus Christ." And this leads 
to a final remark, which is, that there is a 
change in the hopes and prospects of the 
soul, heaven is contemplated as a final home, 
and eternal life, and glory, and joy, as an 
ultimate destiny. 

Having explained the nature of the change 
called regeneration, it is proper to remark : 



CHAP. VIII.] 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



197 



II. Regeneration is an instantaneous 
change. In point of time, it takes place at 
the moment of justification. Justification 
may be regarded first in point of order or 
classification, but in point of time, both are 
instantaneous, and transpire at the same 
moment. When God changes the heart he 
does it at once, in a moment. It does not 
take God a year, nor a month, nor a week, 
nor a day, nor yet an hour, to regenerate a 
soul, when that soul exercises the required 
faith. Nor does God half regenerate souls, 
the whole work is done, or no part of it is 
done. The absurdity of a gradual regen- 
eration, or re'generation by a succession of 
acts by which it is accomplished, part at a 
time, is too manifestly absurd to need refu- 
tation. Yet, as every absurd notion has 
its advocates, it may be Avell to glance at 
some of the objections to the idea of grad- 
ual regeneration. 

1. The idea of a gradual regeneration, 
implies that God is limited in his power to 
work. Faith is the condition, and faith 
must exist before the work of regeneration 
can begin, and when faith, the only condi- 
tion, is exercised, God has promised to do 
the work, and if it does not take place at 
the moment true faith is exercised, it must 
be because God needs time, because he has 
not power to do it in a moment. 

2. The idea of a gradual regeneration 
would embarrass the exercise of faith, as it 
would place the object desired, prayed and 
believed for. regeneration, beyond the possi 
bility of the present moment, without giv 
ing any information how distant it is in 
point of time, how soon we may obtain it, 
or how long we may have to wait. It will 
not be pretended that God has anywhere in 
the Bible, told us how long it takes him to 
regenerate a soul, upon the supposition that 
it is not an instantaneous work. 

3. It involves the absurdity, of supposing 
that there is a time in the history of m.oral 
accountable agents, when they possess no 
distinctive moral character. Suppose a 
sinner, no matter how wicked, and by re 
generation he becomes a saint, no matter 



how good, if regeneration is gradual, there 
must be a time during the process of the 
change, when he is neither good nor bad, 
neither a sinner nor a saint. 

4. It would involve the absurdity of sup- 
posing a class of persons not proper sub- 
jects of heaven or hell. If regeneration is 
gradual, there must be a time in the history 
of every person regenerated, when they are 
half regenerated. A person only half re- 
newed, would not be fit for heaven, and one 
who should be half renewed, would not be 
fit for hell. Such an one would make a 
strange spectre in perdition with God's re- 
newing work half finished upon him." 

5. All the recorded facts in regard to 
regeneration are against the idea of a grad- 
ual work, and support the theory of an in- 
stantaneous change. 

Matt. ix. 2 : " Jesus seeing their faith, 
said unto the sick of the palsy, son, be of 
good cheer ; thy sins be forgiven thee." 
The forgiveness of sin is inseparable from 
regeneration, therefore Christ regenerated 
that sinner that moment. 

Luke vii. 47 : "I say unto thee, her sins, 
which are many, are all forgiven." This 
must have been done in a short time, for 
she went into the house a sinner. 

Luke xxiii. 43 : " Christ said to the dy- 
ing criminal, " To-day shalt thou be with 
me in paradise." In a few moments Christ 
was dead, and so was the other in a very 
short time. Regeneration must have beea 
accomplished within an hour or two in this 
case. 

At the day of Pentecost, three thousand 
were regenerated in less than one day. 

The keeper of the prison and his whole 
household appear to have been regenerated 
in about an hour. Acts xvi. 33, 34. 

As plain as is the doctrine of instantane- 
ous regeneration, it needs to be guarded 
against abuse. 

1. It is not to be understood that a pre- 
vious preparation of mind is not necessary, 
which may require time, sometimes longer, 
sometimes shorter. There must at least be 
some gospel light, some knowledge of the 



198 



SALVATION BY GEACE DEFENDED. 



[book II. 



plan of salvation. The sinner's attention 
must be directed to the subject, and there 
must be conviction, what some call an 
awakening. There mast be genuine re 
pentance, and faith must be exercised, and 
the moment it is, regeneration takes place. 
This previous mental preparation does not 
require the same length of time in every 
case. Sometimes it all transpires in a very 
short time ; in others, it is the work of 
weeks, months, or years. Tet, it need not 
require so long a time. 

2. It is not to be understood by instan- 
taneous regeneration, that the regenerated 
person is necessarily thereby rendered per- 
fect, or has reached the highest degree of 
Christian attainment. Regeneration re- 
verses the current of the affections, and so 
renews the whole soul that all the Chris- 
tian graces exist. They may not all ex- 
ist in an equal degree of maturity and 
power, but they are all there. They may 
not, they do not usually, any of them 
exist in full maturity and power. A child 
may be a perfect child in all its members 
there may be no member wanting, yet none 
of them are matured, and when the child 
has grown to manhood there will be only 
the same members in number and kind 
more fully developed. So the newly re- 
generated person, is born again, is a child 
of God, but may yet be only a babe in 
Christ, and he must grow and increase in 
strength. 

There may be great moral w^eakness with 
the regenerated person ; Avith some, more 
than others, as the moral constitution of 
some may have been more injured by sin 
than others, and when the disease is remov- 
ed, there will remain greater weakness, and 
greater danger of relapse. A man who 
has long been accustomed to habits of in- 
ebriation, or who has long suffered the 
passion of anger to rage on every slight 
provocation, or who has habitually indulged 
in any one vice for a long time, will feel a 
peculiar weakness in the direction of that 
particular sin, and will be more liable to be 
overcome by temptation in that direction 



than in any other. There must, therefore, 
be maintained constant watchfulness and a 
perpetual warfare, by which the babe in 
Christ will become a strong man. There 
is one text which some have regarded as 
contradicting this view, and which others 
have found very difficult to explain, and re- 
concile with their peculiar views of the re- 
generate state, which shall be introduced at 
this point. 

1 John iii. 9 : " Whosoever is born of 
God doth not commit sin ; for his seed re- 
maineth in him : and he cannot sin, because 
he is born of God." 

Some have supposed that this text proves 
the doctrine of Christian perfection, and 
others have attempted so to explain it, as to 
make it refute that doctrine. Both are, no 
doubt, wrong, the text cannot relate to that 
subject. The text certainly proves nothing 
against the doctrine, for it does not affirm 
or intimate that we cannot live without sin. 
On the other hand, it cannot be relied upon 
to prove the doctrine of Christian perfec- 
tion, as held by some, because it affirms, of 
all that are born of God, whereas the be- 
lievers in the doctrine do not contend that 
all who are Christians, are perfect, or Avhol- 
ly sanctified. If it be made to bear this in- 
terpretation, it will prove equally certain, 
that no person ever does or ever can sin af- 
ter being born of God. It affirms, that 
" whosoever," that is, any one and every 
one, that " is born of God does not commit 
sin." Yet it is a mattor ot fact that many, 
not to say all, who are born of God do sin, 
sometimes at least, and some fall grossly 
into sin. Again, the text affirms, that 
" he " the person that is born of God, " can- 
not sin," but we know they can sin, and too 
frequently do sin. What, then, is the true 
exposition of the text. It cannot mean 
what is not true, but must mean what is 
true. In what sense, then, is it true, that 
persons born of God do not sin, cannot sin ? 
The Apostle is discussing the difference be- 
tween the regenerate and the unregenerate, 
and this is true in regard to the difference. 
The unregenerate, sin as a habit of life, with 



CHAP. VIII.] 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



199 



them a life of sin is the rule ; the regenerate 
do not sin as a habit of life, obedience, holi- 
ness is the rule with them, and when Chris- 
tians sin, as they sometimes do, it is an ex- 
ception. This is all that is true of the whole 
number that are born of God. The ex- 
pression, " he cannot sin," means, he cannot 
sin as a habit of life, as the rule of living-, for, 
with all who are born of God, obedience 
and holiness is the rule. We must also 
make a distinction between sin committed 
as a habit of life and by deliberate thought, 
and set purpose of heart, and sin committed 
as an exception to general habit of life, by 
sudden impulse under strong provocation or 
powerful temptation. This distinction com- 
mon sense makes, all churches make it in 
matters of discipline, and the Gospel makes it. 
There are many Christians who can affirm, 
with a clear conscience, that they have 
never committed a deliberate wilful sin 
since they were converted, but there are but 
few, if any, who will affirm, that they have 
never sinned since they were converted. 
Here, then, is the distinction. Here are two 
members of the same church. One by a 
preconcerted and deeply laid plan, perpe- 
trates a deliberate wrong. The other, un- 
der strong provocation becomes angry and 
uses sinful language. He Avas a man ad- 
dicted to passion before he was converted., 
and this is his weak point, and this is his 
first offence since he was converted. Both 
are arraigned before the church, and the one 
who committed the deliberate wrong finds 
no sympathy more than any common sinner 
would ; the other says, " I was wrong, I 
liave sinned in letting my anger get the up- 
per hand, I am sorry, I will try to be more 
watchful, and I pray God to forgive me, 
and I hope you, brethren, will forgive me ;" 
and he has the deep sympathy of every true 
hearted Christian, and his sin is overlooked. 
It is in this sense that regenerate persons 
too frequently sin, not of necessity, but 
through weakness and strong temptation, 
and how many have thus sinned without 
entirely fiilling, or wholly losing the advan- 
tages of their regenerate state, the experi- 



ence Of all Christians, if summed up on the 
subject, would show. The Scriptures, in 
many other texts, clearly teach that the re- 
generate are not only in danger of sinning, 
not only that they can sin, but they do often 
sin, without final apostacy, which is also a 
possible case. 

Gal. vi. 1 : " Brethren, if a man be over- 
taken in a fault, ye which are spiritual re- 
store such a one in the spirit of meekness ; 
considering thyself, lest thou also , be 
tempted. ' 

1 John ii. 1 : " My little children, these 
things write I unto you, that ye sin not. 
And if any man sin, we have an advocate 
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righte- 
ous." 

These texts prove that regenerate persons 
may commit sin. 

Chap V. 16: "If any man see his broth- 
er sin a sin which is not unto death, he 
shall ask, and he shall give him life for them 
that sin not unto death." 

Sin is sin, and all sin, if persisted in, is 
unto death ; for " sin, when finished, bringeth 
forth death." This text, which has so ter- 
ribly troubled commentators, will be plain, 
if understood in the light of the subject un- 
der consideration. Observe, it refers to re- 
generate persons. For the Apostle, to talk 
about seeing a common sinner, one who sins 
as a habit of life, and who is dead in sins, 
sin is a sin unto death, would be to talk 
without sense. He who is alive, alone can 
sin unto death. The sense, then, may be 
this : " a sin not unto death," may be a sin 
committed as above supposed, as an excep- 
tion to the general habit of life, through 
weakness, and sudden and powerful tempta- 
tion. Such a sin is not unto death, if re- 
pented of and forsaken so soon as the mind is 
restored to a state of calm reflection, and the 
will rallies and makes its determination of 
its future course with reference to the wrong 
act. On asking, the life of God in the soul, 
the life of peace and, joy is restored to such 
an one. By a sin unto death, a deliberate 
wilful sin may be meant, such a sin as 
amounts to a heart abandonment of Chris- 



200 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



[book II. 



tianity. Such are not subjects of prayer, 
as erring Christian brethren, but only in 
the sense that all sinners are to be prayed 
for. 

John cannot have meant to say that they 
should ask life for all sinners, except those 
who had committed the unpardonable sin, 
so called, and life should be given. 

It is hoped that the reader has not lost 
sight of the question, which is, that instanta- 
neous regeneration does not imply that regen- 
erated persons are necessarily thereby, ren- 
dered perfect, or have reached the highest 
degree of Christian attainment. The pow- 
er of sin is broken, the principle of obedi- 
ence is planted in the heart, holiness is the 
rule and habit of life, and an increase in the 
strength and development of all the Chris- 
tian virtues is a duty. Here the state of 
the regenerate must rest for the present. 

III. It is proper to notice the relation 
which regeneration sustains to justification, 
noting at the same time, wherein the one 
differs from the other. The facts to be ex- 
hibited under this head, have been involved, 
to a large extent, in what already has been 
said on the two subjects, but it will give 
greater clearness to present a condensed 
view at this point. 

Justification and regeneration are con- 
comitant, that is, they transpire at the same 
time, and exist together. It may be said, 
that God never pardons a sinner without 
renewing him, and never renews a sinner 
without forgiving all his past sins at the 
same time. Tet there is a wide difference 
between them. 

1. Justification is a work done for us, but 
regeneration is a work done iu us. 

2. Justification changes our relation to 
God, and restores us to his favor by a par- 
don, while regeneration changes our state, 
our real character. 

3. Justification removes the guilt of the 
sin which we have committed, while regen- 
eration removes the love of sin and takes 
away our bent of sinning. 

4. Justification removes the punishment 
we deserve, remits the penalty of the law, 



but regeneration plants the principle of 
obedience in the heart. 

5. Justification brings the favor of God, 
while regeneration brings back the image 
of God, and again impresses it upon the 
soul. 

SECTION III. 

Adoptio7i. 

1. Adoption is the act of God, whereby 
he, in the exercise of free grace, receives 
sinners, who were strangers, aliens and ene- 
mies, into his family, and constitutes them 
his children and heirs of his eternal glory. 

That true Christians are the children of 
God, sons and daughters, is too plain to 
need proof. They become such by adop- 
tion. On this point the word of God is 
plain. 

Rom. viii. 15 : " Ye have received the 
Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba 
Father." 

Gal. iv. 4, 5 : " When the falness of time 
was come, God sent forth his Son, made of 
a woman, made under the law, to redeem 
them that were under the law, that we 
might receive the adoption of sons." 

Eph. i 5 : " Having predestinated us unto 
the adoption of sons by Jesus Christ, to 
himself" 

Besides these texts which speak of adop- 
tion by name, there are many which imply 
the same fact. 

2 Cor. vi. 17, 18 : " Come out from among 
them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, 
and touch not the unclean thing and I will 
receive you, and will be a Father unto you, 
and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith 
the Lord Almighty." 

Eph. ii. 19 : " Now, therefore, ye are no 
more strangers and foreigners, but fellow- 
citizens with the saints and of the household 
of God." 

Gal. iii. 26 : "Ye are all the children of 
God by faith." Of course they were not 
the children of God before they had faith. 

1 John iii. 1 : " Behold what manner of 
love the Father hath bestowed upon us that 
we should be called the sons of God." 



CHAP. VIII.] 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



201 



2. Adoption is concomitant with justifi- 
tion and regeneration, and cannot be sepa- 
rated from them. It does not appear to be 
a distinct act of God, but to be involved in 
those of justifying and regenerating sinners. 
As justification changes our relation to God, 
and as regeneration renews us after the 
likeness of God, the two appear to embrace 
the entire operation of constituting us the 
children of God, that is, of adopting us. 
At any rate, it is perfectly certain that 
adoption takes place at the same time we 
are justified and regenerated. 

3. Adoption, as a matter of course, con- 
stitutes us heirs of God and entitles us to 
the inheritance of his children. 

Rom. viii. 17 : "If children then heirs : 
heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ." 

Gal. iv. 7 : " Wherefore thou art no more 
a servant but a son : and if a son, then an 
heir of God through Christ." 

Col. i. 12 : " Giving thanks unto the Fa- 
ther, which hath made us to be partakers 
of the inheritance of the saints in light." 

Heb. ix. 15 : " He is the mediator of the 
Xew Testament, that by means of death, 
for the redemption of the transgressions 
that were under the first testament, they 
which are called might receive the promise 
of eternal inheritance." 

1 Peter i. 4 : "To an inheritance, incor- 
ruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not 
away, reserved in heaven for you." 

The inheritance includes the redemption 
of the body from the grave and eternal life, 
which in a Scriptural sense, implies eternal 
happiness and glory, in a word, all the beat- 
itudes of heaven. But these are points 
which will require attention under another 
head. 

SECTION IV. 

The Evidence by which persons may Jcnow 
their acceptance with God. — The Witness 
of the Spirit. — Assurance. 

No subject is more important to those 
who professes to be children of God, than 
the one proposed to be discussed in this sec- 



tion. This place has been selected for its 
consideration, because it sustains an equal 
relation to the three subjects discussed in 
the last three sections. 

It has been shown that justification, re- 
generation, and adoption are concomitant 
blessings, that they exist together, but never 
exist separately. 

Any one argument therefore, which can 
prove either of these blessings to have been 
attained or to be enjoyed by an individual, 
must prove the presence of all three. Hav- 
ing explained the nature of these blessings, 
and established the fact that they exist with, 
or are enjoyed by all true believers, all true 
Christians, all the real children of God by 
faith, it is now more proper to discuss the 
question, by what evidence may an individ- 
ual be satisfied that he is a child of God ? 
than to have discussed it before considering 
these points, or in connection with either of 
them alone. 

The whole truth may now be exhibited 
in support of either part, justification, re- 
generation, or adoption, and it will all bear 
equally on the same great fact, that the 
person 'to whom it relates is a child of God, 
has passed from death unto life. 

There is no fact about which it is so im- 
portant to be sure as this. The point 
proposed to be proved, is that Christians 
may know their calling, may attain to a 
satisfactory knowledge that they have been 
justified, regenerated, and adopted, and that 
they are the children of God by faith. But 
before opening the argument, it is proper to 
define the question, and guard against a 
misapplication of the principles and proof. 

I. The argument is not to be understood 
as designed to prove that there is no possi- 
bility or even danger of being deceived or 
mistaken in regard to our religious state. 

There is danger, and no doubt many are 
deceived or mistaken and rest their hope of 
heaven upon insufficient proof. 

But it is maintained that men need not 
be mistaken, that if they will be honest and 
thorough with themselves, they may know 
their true condition. 



202 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



[book II. 



2. It is not pretended that real Christians 
are not sometimes in doubt in regard to 
their acceptance with God. It is admitted 
that they are, but it is insisted that it is not 
necessary, or if it appears to arise neces- 
sarily from their circumstance, at the time 
of their conversion, their doubts may be dis- 
sipated by a prog'ressive experience, if they 
are faithful and true to the light they have. 
Christian experience, while presentiiig a gen- 
eral sameness, is in some respects, exceed- 
ingly various. 

Some appear to be born into the king- 
dom, as amid the light of noon with full as- 
surance, while others enjoy but an obscure 
light at the moment of conversion. Their 
experience is like that of the traveler who 
approaches a longed for town amid the dark- 
ness of night ; his eye catches the faint 
glimmer of a light in the distance ; so faint 
that at first he doubts whether or not it 
be a light. As he advances it becomes more 
distinct, yet he may doubt if it be the light 
of the town, but a few more progressive 
steps satisfies him ; there is no doubt that 
the light of the town flashes upon him. 

3. It is not pretended that all Christians 
enjoy the same degree of assurance at all 
times. Different persons, who are real Chris- 
tians, may enjoy different degrees of assu- 
rance, and the same Christian may enjoy 
clearer evidence of his acceptance with God 
at one time than at another. This arises 
from different causes, which need not be ex- 
plained. One general cause, however, is a 
difference in the degree of faith exercised, 
and in the degree of devotedness to God. 
All Christians are not equally faithful and 
devoted to God, and equally matured in 
Christian experience, while too many vacil- 
late, and appear to enjoy the undoubted 
smile of the divine favor to-day, who, to- 
morrow, will be found upon the vapor-dad 
banks of the river of Babylon, with their 
harps hanged upon the willows. These are 
eccentricities in Christian experience, which 
are to be deplored and corrected ; they are 
not necessary. All these admissions prove 
nothing against the main fact, that it is pos- 



sible, that it is the privilege and duty of 
every Christian to enjoy constantly an assu- 
rance of his acceptance with God. The 
way is now prepared for the introduction of 
the proof, that Christians may know that 
they are justified, that they are born of God 
and adopted into his family. 

I. The witness of the Holy Spirit is the 
first proof to be named, by which we may 
know our acceptance with God. 

This is an important matter, and involves 
the vitality of Christianity, by involving 
the question of the direct influence of the 
Holy Spirit, on the hearts of men, which 
gives to Christianity its vital, soul-renewing, 
and saving power. The gift of the Holy 
Spirit, is one of the richest blessings which 
flows from the Redeemer's mediation ; it is 
the blessing, without which, all other bles- 
shigs poured upon us would be lost. 

The Scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit 
does witness within believers, to their accep- 
tance with God. Let the argument be 
opened with the most direct and conclusive 
text. 

Rom. viii. 16 : " The Spirit itself beareth 
witness with our spirits, that we are the 
children of God." 

1. This text clearly speaks of the Holy 
Spirit. 

The Apostle is speaking of the Holy 
Spirit, verse 11 : " But if the Spirit of him 
that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in 
you." 

This is the Spirit of God, the Holy 
Spirit. 

Yerse 14 : '' For as many as are led by 
the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." 

Of this same Spirit the Apostle says, 
" The Spirit itself beareth witness." 

Indeed, the expression, " the Spirit itself," 
can mean nothing but the Holy Spirit. It 
cannot mean our spirit ; that is separately 
named. " The Spirit itself beareth witness 
with our own si)irits." The Spirit itself is 
clearly distinguished from our spirit. It 
cannot mean a disposition or temper of mind, 
for the simple reason that a disposition can- 
not be distinguished from our own spirits. 



CHAP. VIII.] 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



203 



Our disposition or temper of mind, is in 
fact tlie mind itself. 

2. The expression, " beareth witness with 
our spirit," is so plain and direct, that it 
cannot be so explained as to mean anything 
else. To bear witness, is to give evidence, 
or to testify, and if the text means anything, 
it means that the Holy Spirit does, in some 
way, testify within the children of God, to 
the fact that they are his children. It is 
true some writers render it, " beareth wit- 
ness to our spirits," but this does not destroy 
its proof to the main fact, it only effects the 
mode ; the Spirit still " beareth witness that 
we are the children of God," and that is the 
only vital point in the argument. The most 
obvious sense of the text, however, is as fol- 
lows : The Spirit itself beareth witness to 
our minds, and our spirit bears witness to 
the same fact, that we are the children of 
God. We have the testimony of the Holy 
Spirit, and we have the testimony of our 
own spirit. It is the testimony of the Holy 
Spirit, which is now under consideration. 
The fact that the Spirit testifies within us, 
is so directly and positively affirmed, that 
the only room for controversy or cavil, must 
be in regard to the manner. But if the 
manner was entirely a mj^stery, it would not 
invalidate so plainly a stated fact. 

When Nicodemus was utterly unable to 
understand the Saviour's doctrine of the 
new birth, and enquired how it could be. 
he received for an answer, " The wind blow- 
eth where it listeth, and thou hearest the 
sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it 
Cometh and whither it goeth : so is ev€ 
one that is born of the Spirit. " If no clearer 
explanation could be given of the manner 
in which, " the Spirit itself beareth witness 
with our spirit, that we are the children of 
God," the fact would remain the same, 
resting upon the authority of the word of 
God. 

3. The most rational and simple oxplana 
tion of the manner in which the Sph-it bear 
eth witness, is given, when it is said that it 
is by the direct action of the Spirit on the 
mind, producing an impression or convic- 



tion, that my sins are forgiven, and that 1 
am a child of God. Nothing short of this 
appears to meet the full force of the lan- 
guage employed. 

To this, it has been objected, that it 
amounts to a revelation from God in the 
soul. The writer does not call it a revela- 
tion, but chooses to limit that term, by way 
of pre-eminence, to that action of the Spirit, 
whereby truth was communicated to the au- 
thors of the sacred Scriptures, for the bene- 
fit of the world. But if others choose to 
call this witness of the Spirit, a revelation, 
there can be no valid objection to it. Sup- 
pose it were said, God makes a revelation 
in the souls of his children, of the fact that 
they are his children, what would be the 
error, or wherein would it go in sense, be- 
yond the sense of the simple words of Paul, 
" The Spirit itself beareth witness with our 
spirits, that we are the children of God." 
The revelation, if it be called a revelation, 
is limited to a single fact, and that fact is 
clearly proved to be made known by the 
Spirit in some way. Kor is the objection 
of force, which affirms that this view ren- 
ders the testimony uncertain, and tends to 
self-deception. The Spirit can testify with- 
in a Christian, that he is a child of God, 
just as clearly and satisfactory, as it could 
testify in Agabus, that the Jews would bind 
Paul. Acts xxi. 11. To deny that the Spirit 
can produce a certain conviction in the 
mind, in regard to our acceptance with God, 
would be to take the infidel ground, that 
God cannot reveal truth to the human mind 
by the direct action of the Spirit. 

But in this case, there are corroborating 
proofs of the fact, to which the Spirit gives 
witness, which cannot fail to render it cer- 
tain, but these must be made distinct points 
of discussion. 

4. Other texts of Scripture which clear- 
ly relate to the same point, confirm the ex- 
position given of Rom. viii, 16, considered 
above. It was said that that was the most 
direct and conclusive text, bat there are 
many more which confirm the view given 
of it, some of which shall be now adduced. 



204 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



[book II. 



The two preceding verses are clear on the 
subject. 

" For as many as are led by the Spirit 
of God, they are the sons of God. For ye 
have not received the spirit of bondage 
again unto fear ; but ye have received the 
Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, 
Father." The original is Abba, Pateer. 
These two words both signify the same thing. 
Abba, is the Syriac word for father, and 
Pateer is the Greek word forv father, and 
our translators have rendered the latter by 
the English word, father, and left the for- 
mer untranslated. But observe. 

1. "As many as are led by the Spirit of 
God, they are the sons of God." Here is 
the direct action of the Spirit of God upon 
the mind, for without it they could not be 
led by it. To be led by it is to respond to 
its promptings and the influence which it 
exerts upon the mind. 

2. All such are the sons of God, in fact, 
and have been adopted into God's family. 

3. Of this fact they have a negative 
proof, in the absence of fear and condemna- 
tion, or in their emancipation from slavery 
and guilt of sin, " for they had not received 
the spirit of bondage again unto fear." 
They once had this spirit, but now they are 
free from it. 

4. They had the evidence of the presence 
of the opposite spirit. " Ye have received 
the Spirit of adoption, whereby Ave cry, 
Abba Father." This was the Holy Spirit, 
called " the Spirit of adoption," because it 
was by its action that they were renewed 
and adopted, because it produced in them 
the affections and tempers of children to- 
wards God, and because by its presence, 
their adoption was proved. They had re- 
ceived the Spirit of adoption whereby they 
cried Abba Father. How could they cry 
Abba Father by the Spirit, unless they 
knew that they had the Spirit ? The Spirit 
first witnessed within them, that they were 
the children of God, and on the ground of 
this testimony, they call God their Father, 
or, in the words of Paul, " cry Abba Fa- 
ther." The Apostle having stated this 



! general fact, he more specifically states how 
it is that they can call God their Father by 
the Spirit of adoption that is in them, 
" For the Spirit itself beareth witness with 
our spirit that we are the children of God." 
The language, " For the Spirit itself bear- 
eth witness," following the declaration that 
they had received the Spirit of adoption 
whereby they cried " Abba Father," be- 
comes not only an explanation of what had 
preceded, but a reason v/hy they cried Abba 
Father. Because the Spirit bore witness 
that they were the children of God, they 
cried Abba Father, and their crying was 
not the first witness to themselves that the 
Spirit gave, or the witness of the Spirit 
itself, but was the result of the witness the 
Spirit first bore that they were the children 
of God. The order of antecedence and se- 
quence is this, " the Spirit itself beareth 
witness with our spirits that we are the 
children of God," which is the antecedent, 
and then as a sequence, " we cry Abba Fa- 
ther." It would subvert the whole of the 
Apostle's argument, to change the order, 
and say that we cry Abba Father, as an 
antecedent, and then infer as a sequence, 
that we are the children of God. 

Gal. iv. 6 : '* And because ye are sons, 
God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son 
into your hearts, crying Abba Father." 
There can be but little doubt that the 
Holy Spirit is here meant by the " Spirit 
of his Son." It may be so called because 
he was anointed with it, and God gave it 
to him without measure, because it was the 
active power by which he performed all 
his works, by which he was raised from the 
dead, it is sent in response to his prayer, in 
his name, and to testify of him. It cannot 
properly mean the disposition or temper of 
mind which Jesus Christ had, for the sim- 
ple reason that it is said to be sent forth 
into their hearts. This is not proper lan- 
guage if spoken of a disposition or temper 
of mind, but exactly suits the usual repre- 
sentations of the Holy Ghost ; it is poured 
out, sent into the world, shed abroad. This 
Spirit cries, " Abba Father," that is, bear- 



CHAP. YIIL] 



SALVATION BY GEACE DEFENDED. 



205 



eth witness that God is onr Father, and 
that we are his children. It prompts us to 
call God Father, by revealing the fact of 
our adoption. 

1 John V, 10 : " He that believeth on 
the Son of God hath the witness in himself." 
Here the declaration is positive that the 
believer has the witness in himself. That 
this witness is the Spirit, is clear from the 
connection. Yerse 6 : " It is the Spirit that 
beareth witness." 

Yerse 8 : " There are three that beareth 
witness in the earth, the Spirit and the wa- 
ter and the blood." From these premises 
it is concluded that " He that believeth on 
the Son of God hath the witness in him- 
self." But it cannot be the water or the 
blood that is within him, it must therefore 
be the Spirit that is the witness in him. 

II. The witness of the Christian's own 
spirit, is another proof by which he may 
know that he is a child of God. This proof 
may comprehend that entire class of feel- 
ings which distinguish a Christian from a 
sinner ; which distinguishes a child of God 
from one who is not a child of God. 

Let the argument be opened with the 
text already so largely considered in regard 
to the witness of the Spirit. " The Spirit 
itself beareth witness with our spirit that 
we are the children of God." This repre- 
sents the Holy Spirit, and our spirit as giv- 
ing a joint testimony to the same fact. The 
witness of the Holy Spirit has been consid- 
ered, but what is the witness of our spirit ? 
This is, 

1. Our consciousness of the fact that the 
Holy Spirit does bear witness that we are 
the children of God. If the Spirit bears 
witness within us, it must be a matter of 
consciousness, and this consciousness assures 
us that we do not mistake the fact that the 
Spirit beareth witness. Consciousness is 
the highest degree of evidence, that of which 
a man is conscious cannot be proved by any 
clearer or more certain evidence. This ren- 
ders the proof sure as the witness of our 
own spirit perfectly confirms the witness of 
the Holy Spirit, as follows. 



Whatever the Holy Spirit testifies, must 
be true, hence, the only doubt is as to the fact 
that it does testify. If the Holy Spirit tes- 
tifies that I am a child of God, then it is 
certain that I am, for the Spirit cannot lie. 
Here consciousness comes in and affirms 
that the Spirit does thus testify, and con- 
sciousness is the highest proof the soul can 
have of any fact. 

2. The testimony of our own spirit is a 
good conscience towards God and all men. 
Conscience taken alone would not be suffi- 
cient proof, yet it is an indispensable item in 
the chain of evidence. This proof is clearly 
alluded to by the Apostle. 

1. John iii. 19, 20, 21 : " And hereby 
know we that we are of the truth, and shall 
assure our hearts before him. For if our 
hearts condemn us. God is greater than our 
hearts, and knoweth all things. Beloved if 
our hearts condemn us not, then have we 
confidence toward God." 

A man's heart condemns him in the Apos- 
tles sense, when his conscience condemns 
him. 

Paul applies the same rule of evidence to 
the Gentiles. Eom. ii. 15 : " Which show 
the work of the law written in their hearts, 
their conscience also bearing witness, and 
their thoughts the meanwhile accusing, or 
else excusing one another." 

The apostle appeals to this rule of evidence 
in proof of his own declaration. Eom. ix. 
1 : '^ I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my 
conscience also bearing me witness in the 
Holy Ghost." 

2 Cor. i. 12 : " For our rejoicing is this, 
the testimony of our conscience." 

3. The testimony of our own spirits ar- 
rises from the peace and joy which reign in 
the hearts of true believers. 

Psa. cxix. 165: " Great peace have they 
that love thy law and nothing shall offend 
them." 

Eom. V. 1,5 : " Therefore being justified by 
faith, we have peace with God, through our 
Lord Jesus Christ : by whom also we have 
access by faith into this grace wherein we 
stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of 



206 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



[book II. 



God. And not only so, but we glory in tribu- 
lation also ; knowing that tribulation work 
eth i^atience ; and patience, experience ; and 
experience, Lope ; and hope maketh not 
ashamed ; because the love of God is shed 
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost 
which is given unto us." 

Luke xvii. 21 : " Behold the kingdom of 
God is within you." Eom. xiv. 17 : " The 
kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but 
righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy 
Ghost." 

Eom. XV. 13 : " Now the God of hope 
fill you with all joy and peace in believing, 
that 3^e may abound in hope, through the 
power of the Holy Ghost." 

John xvi. 24 : " Hitherto have ye asked 
nothing in my name : ask, and ye shall re- 
ceive, that your joy maybe full." 

Phil. iv. 7 : " And the peace of God, 
which passeth all understanding shall keep 
your hearts and minds through Jesus 
Christ." 

1 John i. 4 : " These things write we unto 
you, that your joy maybe full." 

It is a sufficient comment upon all these 
texts, to say that they describe a state of 
things, which cannot exist and remain un- 
known to the person, in whose mind the de- 
velopment takes place. Let one more text 
be quoted under this head. 

1 John iii. 14 : '• We know that we have 
passed from death unto life, because we love 
the brethren." 

This language is clear and positive, and 
represents Christians as knowing that they 
are Christians by their own feelings. They 
feel a love to the brethren which an unbe- 
liever does not and cannot feel. 

4. The descriptions given in the word of 
God, of the change by which sinners become 
Christians, clearly prove that it is a fact to 
be known by those who experience it. The 
figures are borrowed from natural things, 
and are so striking that they cannot be em- 
ployed to represent an unknown change. 
The mind must take cognizance of the 
change where it takes place, and of the new 
state, where it exists, and our spirits con- 



sequently bear witness with the Spirit itself, 
that we are the children of God. The change 
is described as so great as to leave no room 
to suppose that either our consciousness or 
our judgment can overlook it. 

(1.) It is represented as a transition from 
darkness to light. 

Act xvi. 18 : " To turn them from dark- 
ness to light, and from the power of Satan 
unto God, that they may receive the for- 
giveness of sins." 

This Paul declares was the object of his 
mission to the Gentiles, and it will not be 
pretended that he, under God, could do this 
and the Gentiles not know it. 

Eph. V. 8 : " For ye were sometime dark- 
ness, but now are ye light in the Lord : 
walk as children of the Light." 

These, Paul had turned from darkness to 
light. 

Col. i. 13 : " Who hath delivered us from 
the power of darkness, and translated us 
into the kingdom of his dear Son." 

1 Peter ii. 9 : " But ye are a chosen gen- 
eration, a royal priesthood, a peculiar peo- 
ple ; that ye should show forth the praise of 
him, who hath called you out of darkness 
into his marvelous light." 

It would have been marvelous indeed, if 
such a people had not known themselves, 
after an inspired Apostle had told them who 
and what they were, in addition to what 
they had felt in their own experience. 

(2.) The change from nature to grace is 
represented as a release from imprisonment, 
and as an emancipation from bondage or 
servitude. 

Luke iv. 18 : '• The Spirit of the Lord is 
upon me, because he hath anointed me to 
preach the Gospel to the poor ; he hath sent 
me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach 
deliverance to the captives, and recovering 
of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them 
that are bruised." 

This is descriptive of the effects of the 
Gospel. Those who are saved by the Gospel 
are represented as experiencing what is 
properly described as the healing of a brok- 
en heart, as a release from captivity, as the 



CHAP. VIII.] 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



207 



bringing out of a prisoner from prison where 
he was bruised and galled with irons that 
bound him. Such representations cannot 
refer to a change that cannot be known. 

John viii. 36 : "If the Son, therefore, 
shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." 

This refers to a release from bondage, as 
an illustration of the change which takes 
place in the state of one whom Christ saves 
from sin. 

Kom. vi. 18, 22 : " Being then made free 
from sin, ye become the servants of righte- 
ousness. But now being made free from 
sin, and become servants to God, ye have 
your fruit unto holiness, and the end ever- 
lasting life." 

Eom. viii. 1,2: " There is, therefore, no 
condemnation to them which are in Christ 
Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after 
the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of 
life in Christ Jesus, hath made me free from 
the law of sin and death." 

Such language can describe none but a 
change and a state which may be known. 

(3.) The change from nature to grace, is 
represented as a moral resurrection, a resto- 
ration from death to life. 

John V. 24 : " ^'^erily, verily, I say unto 
you, He that heareth my word, and believ- 
eth on him that sent me, hath everlastino 
life, and shall not come into condemnation ; 
but is passed from death unto life." 

The expression, " hath passed from death 
unto life," denotes the change through which 
a sinner passes, when he becomes a Chris- 
tian. 

Eph. ii. 1, 6 : " And you hath he quick- 
ened, who were dead in trespasses and sins 
Even when we were dead in sins, he hath 
quickened us together with Christ." 

Col. ii. 13 : " And you, being dead in 
your sins and the uncircumcision of your 
flesh, hath he quickened together with him, 
having forgiven you all trespasses." 

5. Another and final ground upon which 
our spirits bear witness, that we are the 
children of God, is a general conformity to 
the requirements of the Gospel. 

John xiv. 21, 23 : " He that hath my 



commandments, and keepeth them, he it is 
that loveth me : and he that loveth me, 
shall be loved of my Father, and I will love 
him, and will manifest myself to him. Jesus 
answered and said unto him. If a man love 
me, he will keep my words : and my Father 
will love him, and we will come unto him, 
and make our abode with him." 

1 John ii. 5 : " But whoso keepeth his 
word, in him verily is the love of God per- 
fected : hereby know we that we are in 
him." 

Chap. iii. 24 : " And he that keepeth his 
commandments, dwelleth in him, and he in 
him. And hereby we know that he abideth 
in us, by the Spirit which he hath given 
us." 

To say that a man cannot know whether 
or not he keeps the commandments, is vir- 
tually to deny human responsibility in re- 
gard to them. How can a man be held 
responsible for not doing that in regard to 
which he has not and cannot have light 
enough to know when he has done it. To 
admit that a man can know that he keeps 
the commandments, is to admit, in the light 
of the above texts, that he may know that 
he is a child of God. Here let this argu- 
ment close. 



SECTION V. 

Sanctification. 

The doctrine of sactification is approached 
with a large degree of solicitude, not on ac- 
count of any doubts in regard to it, but in 
view of its vast practical importance, in 
connection with the fact that there exists a 
great diversity of views on the subject. No 
question in theology is of greater practical 
importance to every Christian, and yet tliere 
are few, if any points, in regard to which 
the views of Christians appear less clear 
and perfect. It is, doubless, in some sense, 
plain in experience to those who enjoy it, 
but so to put it upon paper as to render it 
plain to those who have never experienced 
the blessing, or who have experienced it 



208 



SALTATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



[BOOK II 



only in a very limited degree, is not the 
easiest task which the author of a system of 
theology has to perform. A work like this 
would be incomplete without an examina- 
tion of the subject, and as difficult as it may 
be to present it, so as not to add obscurity 
to what has already been rendered too ob- 
scure, the task must be undertaken. 

I. Sanctificatiou has its beginning in re- 
generation. 

This point is universally admitted. What- 
ever controversies have arisen in regard to 
other aspects of saucitification, it is believed, 
that no evangelical writer has denied that 
sanctificatiou begins with regeneration, and 
that every regenerate person is, in part, 
sanctified. 

Mr. Wesley, in denying gradual regener- 
ation, says, " This is undeniably true, [that 
the work is gradual] of sanctificatiou ; but 
of regeneration, the new birth, it is not true. 
When we are born again, then our sanctifi- 
catiou, our outward and inward holiness be- 
gins."— [Vol. I., 406. 

Here Mr. Wesley clearly fixes the com- 
mencement of sanctificatiou at the time of 
regeneration. 

Mr. Wesley says, again, " At the same 
time a man is justified, he is born again, 
born from above, born of the Spirit, which, 
although it is not the whole process of sanc- 
tificatiou, is, doubtless, the gate to it. It is 
only the threshhold of sanctificatiou ; tlie 
first entrance upon it. The new birth, 
therefore, is the first point of sanctificatiou 
which may increase more and more unto 
the perfect day."— [Yol. IL, 389, 390. 

The above is sufficient to show that Mr 
Wesley held that sanctificatiou commences 
with regeneration, and that every regener- 
ate persons is, in part, sanctified. 

Mr. Watson holds the same view, for 
though he has not made it a distinct point, 
he has incidentally brought it to view too 
clearly to admit of doubt. He says, " To 
be in Christ is, therefore, to be jiistified, and 
regeneration instantly follows. The regen 
erate state is, also, called in Scripture, sane 
tification, though a distinction is made by 



the Apostle Paul, between that and being 
sanctified wholly. Tn this regenerate state, 
or sanctified state, the former corruptions 
of the heart may remain and strive for the 
mastery, but that which characterizes and 
distinguishes it from the state of a penitent 
before justification, before he is in Christ, is, 
that they are not even his inward hahit ; 
and that they have no dominion." 

Again, Mr. Watson most clearly con- 
founds sanctificatiou with regeneration. He 
says " Justification, being the pardon of 
sin, this view of the doctrine guards us 
against the notion, that it is an act of God 
by which we are made actually just and 
righteous. This is sanctificatiou, which is, 
indeed, the immediate fruit of justification ; 
but nevertheless, is a distinct gift of God, 
and of a totally different nature. The one 
implies what God does for us through his 
Son ; the other, what God does in us by his 
Spirit." 

Bear in mind that Mr. Watson here as- 
serts, that the work of God within us, " by 
which we are made actually just and right- 
eous," is sanctificatiou, and then compare it 
with his definition of regeneration, which is 
as follows : 

" It is that mighty change in man, wrought 
by the Holy Spirit, by which the dominion 
which sin has over him in his natural state, 
and which he deplores and struggles against 
in his penitent state, is broken and abolish- 
ed, so that, with full choice of will, and en- 
ergy of right affections, he serves God freely, 
and runs in the way of his commandments. 
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit 
sin, for his seed remaiueth in him, and he 
cannot sin, because he is born of God. For 
sin shall not have dominion over you ; for [ 
ye are not under the law, but under grace. \ 
But now being made free from sin, and be- \ 
come servants to God, ye have your fruit I 
unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 
Deliverance from the bondage of sin, and 
the power, and will to do all things which 
are pleasing to God, both as to inward hab- 
its and outward acts, are, therefore, the 
distinctive characters of this state." — [Wat- 



CHAP. VIII.] 



SALTATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



209 



son's Institutes, Part II. chapters xxiii. and 

XXIV. 

This is Mr. Watson's own definition of 
regeneration, and it will be seen at a glance, 
that it includes all that is included in the 
previously described state, of which he af- 
firms, " this is sanctification." 

If we turn to chapter xxix, where Mr. 
Watson treats of sanctification, as a dis- 
tinct benefit derived from redemption, we 
shall not find sanctification explained or 
proved, as embracing anything more than is 
embraced in his definition of regeneration 
above given, beyond a mere growth in Chris- 
tian virtues already possessed. 

Mr. Watson enters upon the subject by 
way of resuming the consideration of the 
benefits of redemption, and introduces it as 
follows : 

" We have already spoken of justification, 
adoption, regeneration, and the witness of 
the Holy Spirit, and we proceed to another 
[benefit] as distinctly marked, and as gra- 
ciously promised in the Holy Scriptures : 
this is the entire sanctification, or the per- 
fected holiness of believers. That a distinc- 
tion exists between a regenerate state, and 
a state of entire and perfect holiness, will 
be generally allowed. Regeneration, we 
have seen, is concomitant with justification ; 
but the Apostles, in addressing the body of 
believers in the churches, to whom they 
wrote their epistles, set before them, both in 
the prayers they offer in their behalf, and in 
the exhortation they administer, a still higher I 
degree of deliverance from sin, as well as a 
higher growth in Christian virtues." | 

It is now clear that Mr. Watson regarded 
sanctification, as having its beginning in re- 
generation, and entire sanctification as the! 
maturity or perfection of the regenerate state. ' 
This is very certain, from the following j 
facts : j 

1. He declares, in so many words, that, 
" the regenerate state is also called in the 
Scriptures sanctification," admitting at the 
same time, a distinction between it " and 
being sanctified wholly." I 

2. In stating the doctrine of entire sanc- 

14 



tification, he does not represent it as embra- 
cing anything more than regeneration in 
kind, but only an increased degree of the 
same thing. He declares that regeneration 
includes " the power and will to do all 
things, which are pleasing to God, both as 
to inward habits and outward acts." This 
leaves nothing to be embraced in sanctifica- 
tion, save an increased degree or perfected 
state of the same thing. Hence our author, 
in perfect harmony with his own theory, 
describes entire sanctification as *• the per- 
fected holiness of believers." This suppo- 
ses there is an unperfected holiness of be- 
lievers, before reaching this perfected holi- 
ness, which is " entire sanctification," hence 
regeneration must establish an unperfected 
holiness in the soul, and entire sanctification 
is the perfecting of that holiness. 

Again, our author describes entire sanc- 
tification, with reference to regeneration, as 
" a still higher state of deliverance from sin, 
as well as a higher growth in Christian vir- 
tues." This supposes that regeneration is 
" a deliverance from sin," and that entire 
sanctification is only " a still higher deliver- 
ance from sin ;" and that regeneration plants 
every Christian virtue in the soul, and that 
entire sanctification is only " a higher growth 
in Christian virtues." It is certain then that 
Mr. Watson held, that sanctification has its 
beginning in regeneration. 

This extended notice of Mr. Watson's 
views has not been given, because he is 
thought wanting in clearness, to those who 
are themselves clear, but because some whose 
own vision has been wanting in clearness, 
have read Mr. Watson, through the cloud 
that hung over their own minds. 

Rev. William Cook, an able writer of the 
Methodist New Connection, holds the same 
view. In speaking of the state of Chris- 
tians, prior to entire sanctification, he says, 
"That the believer is already sanctified in. 
an important degree, is manifest from his 
being born again, and made a new creature 
in Christ Jesus." 

Having further described the state of 
Christians prior to entire sanctification, Mr. 



210 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



[book II. 



Cook adds : '* Thus far then, every believer 
is sanctified at the monicut of his justifica- 
tion ; and this state is inexpressibly great 
and glorious. But great and glorious as is 
this state, it is not perfect." — [Theology, 
pages 448-9. 

The above is sufficient to show that Mr. 
Cook holds, that sanctification begins with 
regeneration, which is the only point now 
under consideration. 

The above is sufficient to show what is 
the Methodist view of the subject. The 
Calvinistic view is the same on this one 
point. 

The Kev. Dr. Hill says, " That change 
of character, which is the effect of the op- 
eration of the Spirit, and the beginning of 
sanctification, is called conversion."' — [Lec- 
tures on Divinity, chap. iv. 

" Sanctification then, means a new life, 
the production of the habit of righteous- 
ness, as well as an aversion from sin.". — [lb. 

The " habit of righteousness" and "aver- 
sion from sin" must commence with regene- 
ration, and hence here our author must date 
the beginning of sanctification. 

Eev. Charles Buck says, " Sanctification 
is that work of God's grace, by which we 
are renewed." 

Again, he says it is, " a progressive work, 
and not perfected at once." — [Buck's Theo- 
logical Dictionary. 

This proves that Mr. Buck held that 
sanctification commences with regeneration, 
and from thence progresses onward. 

The Presbyterian Church in the United 
States, in her Confession of Faith, says of 
sanctification, " They who arc effectually 
called and regenerated, having a new heart 
and a new spirit created in them, are fur- 
ther sanctified, really and personally, through 
virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, 
by his word and Spirit dwelling in them." 
Chap. XIII. 

The expression, " farther sanctified," im- 
plies that they are sanctified in part at re- 
generation. 

The Rev. Samuel Helffenstein, D. D., a 
writer of the German Keibrm Church in 



the United States, is very distinct on the 
point. He says " sanctification is that act 
of God's free grace, whereby believers are 
gradually cleansed from the remains of sin, 
and indwelling corruption, and renewed af- 
ter the image of God. This work is 
commenced in regeneration ; the principle 
of spiritual life is there implanted, and the 
man is renewed in knowledge after the im- 
age of God, and in true righteousness and 
holiness. This work, thus commenced in 
regeneration, is carried on in sanctification. 
It is true, as soon as the sinner is regener- 
ated and justified, he is likewise sanctified ; 
however, there is a difference between justi- 
fication and sanctification. Justification is 
an act completed at once ; sanctification is 
a work which is gradual and progressive." 
— [Helffenstein's Theology, pages 324, 325. 

Dr. Dwight says, " The first sanctifying 
act of the Spirit of God, is employed in re- 
generating the soul. Succeeding acts, of 
the same nature, are employed in purging 
it through all the successive periods of 
life."— [D wight's Theology, Yol. H., p. 522. 

Bev. Charles G. Finney, says of regen- 
eration, " It implies an entire present change 
of moral character, that is, a change from 
entire sinfulness to entire holiness. When 
the Scriptures require us to grow in grace, 
and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus. 
Christ, this does not imply that there is yet 
sni remaining in the regenerate heart." — 
[Yol. I., pages 500, 501. 

The above language appears to imply 
that sanctification is not only commenced in 
regeneration, but finished also. Eegenera- 
tion is declared to imply a state of entire 
holiness, and what sanctification can em- 
brace more than entire holiness, it is not 
easy to see. When Mr. Finney speaks of 
sanctification, his language implies no more 
than what he affirms of instantaneous re- 
generation. He says, " Sanctification, then, 
is nothing more or less than entire obedi- 
ence for the time being, to the moral law." 
—[Yol. II., page 200. 

Now, as our author says regeneration is 
an instantaneous change to entire holiness, 



CHAP. VIII.] 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



211 



and as lie declares that entire holiness is en- 
tire obedience, and that sanctification is 
nothing more or less than entire obedience 
for the time being, to the moral law," it 
follows that according to his theory, every 
regenerate person is sanctified at the mo- 
ment of regeneration, and that entire sanc- 
tification is only the act of abiding in the 
simple regenerate state. This conclusion 
he affirms himself, when hC' says on page 
301, " entire sanctification, as I understand 
the term, is identical with entire and con- 
tinued obedience to the law of God." This 
entire obedience is regeneration, that is, re- 
generation is a change to this entire obedi- 
ence, hence, according to his theory, entire 
sanctification, is a simple continuance in 
the regenerate state as it transpires at the 
moment of the change. This certainly 
differs from the views of many, and from 
the one which will hereafter be advocated. 
The object of the above extracts has been 
to show that all agree on the one point, 
that sanctification begins with regeneration. 
This they prove, and beyond this the read- 
er is not to regard them as endorsed. The 
fact that sanctification commences with re 
generation being admitted by all, any con- 
clusions which may hereafter be fairly 
drawn from the fact, will be conclusive on 
all classes of Christians. 

II. The way is now prepared to enquire 
what is entire sanctification, more than is 
implied in regenera.tion. 

To make the matter as plain as possible 
it will be necessary to explain what sancti- 
fication is, and then point out wherein it 
transcends regeneration ? 

Before attempting an explicit answer to 
this question, it is proper to notice the 
primary sense of the terms employed to ex 
press the thing after the nature of which 
we inquire. 

To sanctify is to separate a thing from 
common use, and to devote it exclusively 
to holy or religious purposes. It contains 
the two ideas, that of separation, and of 
consecration. Christians are sanctified by 
being separated from the world, and by 



being devoted to God. It implies real ho- 
liness, hence, to sanctify, is to purify and 
make holy. 

The Hebrew word rendered sanctify, is 
kadash, and signifies to cleanse, purify, make 
holy. 

The Greek word rendered sanctify, is 
hagiazo. It is derived from hagios, which 
signifies holy, hence hagiazo signifies, to 
consecrate, separate, set apart, purify, 
cleanse from pollution, make holy. This 
word occurs twenty times in the New Tes- 
tament ; twice it is rendered " hallowed,'' once 
it is rendered " be holy," and in all the other 
cases it is rendered sanctify, sanctified, and 
sanctifieth. 

The noun rendered sanctification in 
Greek, is hagiasmos. This is derived from 
the same, hagios, holy. This word occurs 
only ten times in the New Testament, and 
in five cases it is translated holiness, and in 
five it is translated sanctification. As spec- 
imens of the texts in which the word is 
rendered by each of these English words, 
the following is sufficient. 

Heb. xii. 14 : " Follow peace with all 
men, and [hagiasmon] holiness, without 
which no man shall see the Lord." 

1 Cor. i. 30 : " Who of God is made unto 
us wisdom, and righteousness, and [hagias- 
mos] sanctification, and redemption." 

These explanations, though not essential 
to the argument, clearly show that to be 
sanctified, is to be made holy, to be cleansed 
from sin. The way is now prepared to 
give a definition of sanctification, which 
shall be done in as few and clear words as 
possible. Sanctification is that renewal of 
our fallen nature by the Holy Ghost, re- 
ceived through faith in Jesus Christ, whose 
blood of atonement has power to cleanse 
from all sin ; whereby we are not only de- 
livered from the guilt of sin, which is justi- 
fication, but are washed entirely from its 
pollution, freed from its power, and are en- 
abled, through grace, to love God with all 
our hearts, and to walk in his holy com- 
mandments blameless. 

This definition is in harmony with the 



212 



SALVATION BY GKACE DEFENDED. 



[book II. 



established fact that sanctifi cation com- 
mences witli regeneration, because it in- 
cludes all that is ascribed to that change, 
while, in extent, it exjDresses a higher state 
than all regenerate persons can be said to 
CDJoy, at the commencemeat of their Chris- 
tian experience. 

But what does sanctification embrace 
more than is implied in regeneration ? 

It is not to be understood that sanctifi- 
cation adds any new virtues, which are not 
present in every regenerate soul, before en- 
tire sanctification. It was said, while treat- 
ing of regeneration, that it reverses the cur- 
rent of the affections, and so renews the 
whole soul that all the Christian graces exist. 

They may not all exist in an equal de- 
gree of strength, but they are all there, 
though some of them may be as the shining 
of a faint light. None of them are likely 
to exist in a full degree of maturity and 
power at the moment of regeneration. 

The power of sin is broken, the tyrant 
is dethroned, and his reign ceases in the 
soul at the moment of regeneration ; yet, 
sin is not so destroyed as not to leave his 
mark upon the sonl, and even yet struggle 
for the mastery. 

There is still a warfare within, and how- 
ever clear the intellect may be to see what 
is right, and however determined the will 
may be to execute the decision of the judg- 
ment, there will be found an opposing ele- 
ment in the sensibility of the soul, which, 
though it no longer controls the will, often 
rebels against it and refuses to obey it. That 
depravity does not lie exclusively in the 
will, but also in the perverted passions and 
appetites is too plain to be denied, and that 
these struggle for unlawful indulgence after 
regeneration, is too universal in Christian 
experience to need proof. This state of 
things, as a matter of fact, must be admit- 
ted by all, yet theologians explain it in the 
light of their diSerent creeds and different 
systems of philosophy. Hence some call 
it the remains of original sin, some call it 
indwelling sin, and some say it is the de- 
pravity that remains after regeneration. 



Rev. Charles G. Finney, denies that it is 
moral depravity, and hence he denies that 
there is any sin or moral depravity remain- 
ing in the soul after regeneration. He de- 
nies that any moral quality pertains to the 
sensibility of the soul, and hence he does 
not include the subjugation of the passions 
to the sanctified will in his idea of entire 
sanctification, beyond the mere fact that 
the will is not governed by them, and does 
not endorse or execute any of their irregu- 
lar motions. His words are, " It is evident 
that sanctification in the Scripture, and 
proper sense of the term, is not a mere feel- 
ing of any kind. It is not a desire, an ap- 
petite, a passion, a propensity, an emotion, 
nor indeed any kind or degree of feeling. 
It is not a state or phenomenon of the sen- 
sibility. The states of the sensibility arc, 
like those of the intelligence, purely passive 
states of mind, as has been repeatedly 
shown. They of course can have no moral 
character in themselves. The inspired 
writers evidently use the terms which are 
translated by the English word sanctify, to 
designate a phenomenon of the will, or a 
voluntary state of mind." — [Systematic The- 
ology, Yol. II., page 200. 

If the above be all true, the conclusion 
appears undeniable, that every man is en- 
tirely sanctified the moment he wills right, 
and as Mr. Finney contends for the freedom 
of the will, that man has natural power to 
will right, all can sanctify themselves by an 
act of will in a moment. Perhaps Mr. F. 
and his friends will feel no desire to escape 
this conclusion, for it really appears to be 
the result aimed at. Mr. Finney's view of 
sanctification, as above given, appears to be 
defective. While, " it is evident that sanc- 
tification is not a mere feeling of any kind," 
it is no less evident that it includes all right 
feelings, and excludes all wrong feelings. 
While, " it is not a desire, an appetite, a 
passion, a propensity, an emotion, nor in- 
deed any kind or degree of feeling," it com- 
prehends and implies a right state of all 
the desires, appetites, passions, propensities, 
emotions, and every kind and proper degree 



CHAP. YIII.] 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED, 



213 



of right feeling. While " the states of the 
sensibility are, like those of the intelligence, 
purely passive states of mind," still while 
they rebel and struggle against the dictates 
of the intelligence, and the decisions of 
the will, they mar the perfection of the sac- 
rifice which the worshiper is bound to make 
of his entire self to God, and their rebellion 
is inconsistent with what many at least be- 
lieve to be a state of entire sanctification. 
While sanctification is " a voluntary state 
of mind," so far as to exist only as a se- 
quence to the determination of the will, it 
includes much more than right volition, and 
more than volition has power to effect. 

The fact cannot be overlooked that Mr. 
Finney's view of sanctification differs very 
materially from that commonly held by all 
other schools of theology. It differs by be- 
ing grounded upon a denial that moral de- 
pravity extends to the states of the intelli- 
gence and sensibility of the soul, depravity 
being confined wholly to the state of the 
will. 

It does differ by being made to include, 
according to the above view, only a right 
state of the will, while others hold that it 
includes a right state of all the powers and 
susceptibilities of the soul. 

Mr. Finney denies that there is any sin 
or moral depravity remaining in the soul 
after regeneration, but this he does by de- 
nying that the states of the sensibility, in 
which they war against the right determin- 
ations of the will, and clamor for indulgen- 
ces which the will cannot allow without sin, 
involve sin or moral depravity. This makes 
the discussion turn upon the mere name by 
which a mental state is called, and not upon 
the fact of the existence of the state. That 
such states of the sensibility exist after re- 
generation all must admit, but while old 
school men call it depravity remaining after 
regeneration, Mr. Finney denies that it is sin, 
or moral depravity, and affirms that it is 
physical depravity, referring to the same 
mental state which others call remaining 
sin after regeneration, allowing regeneration 
to take place instantaneously with justifica- 



tion. It is not necesary to take issue with 
Mr. Finney on the use of terms, since the 
thing called by different names is now under- 
stood. Allowing Mr. Finney to be right 
in calling it physical depravity, it is then 
maintained that entire sanctification includes 
the removal of this physical depravity, so 
that in all purely mental states, the sensibil- 
ity shall be in harmony with the enlightened 
judgment, and sanctified will, and all be in 
harmony with the divine law. 

What Mr. Finney calls physical depravi- 
ty, must be admitted to be a consequence of 
the fall, and also to be greatly aggravated 
and made worse by sinful practices. All 
propensities and passions, and appetites 
which prompt to evil, gather strength in 
the direction of evil, as they are indulged by 
the practice of evil, Now, whether we call 
them sin, original sin, moral depravity, or 
physical depravity, the thing itself must be 
corrected or removed before there can be 
an entire consecration of all the soul to God, 
or before the man can be said to be wholly 
sanctified. Let this point now be illus- 
trated. The passion of anger results from 
an original susceptibility of the soul ; the 
susceptibility is not Avrong in itself, it is 
God's work for a good end. A depraved or 
perverted development of this susceptibility 
is seen, when anger is produced by what 
should produce a feeling of complacency. 
This is often the case, as when one sinner is 
angry because another sinner gives his heart 
to God. Another depraved development of 
this susceptibility is seen when real wrong, 
which ought to produce a feeling of detes- 
tation towards the act, awakens a feeling of 
anger towards the actor, wrong in kind and 
degree, and prompting to wrong acts towards 
him. So far as the will does not acquiese, 
Mr. Finney, if he is understood, calls it 
physical depravity. But with sinners, the 
will does acquiese, often at least. This pro- 
pensity to anger becomes stronger as it is 
indulged. Now, suppose a person naturally 
given to passion, and who has never re- 
strained his anger, is converted at the age 
of forty, and the sin of anger will be found 



2U 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



[book II. 



to have left its mark upon the soul after 
regeneration, in this increased susceptibility 
to anger, or increased liability to become 
angry. The first time the man is insulted, 
he will feel the very pulsations of anger throb 
within him, whether the will consents or 
not. If the will is not carried away by the 
storm of feeling, but maintains its right po- 
sition, the storm will soon lull, and he will 
have gained a victory. In this conflict it is 
supposed that he cried in his heart to God, 
in the name of Jesus Christ, and when the 
conflict is over, though he feels that he has 
been preserved from a great fall, yet he is 
impressed with his own weakness, and is 
dissatisfied with himself, and feels the neces- 
sity of having a still deeper ivork wrought 
within him. If he remains watchful and 
prayerful, under the next provocation, the 
impulse of anger will be less pow(^rful, and 
the victory over it will be achieved with 
greater ease, and so on, until the propensity 
is wholly subdued. 

Apply the principle and operation here 
evolved, to the entire soul with all its pow- 
ers and susceptibilities, so far as applicable, 
and the reader will have spread before him 
the work and process of gradual sanctifica- 
tion, after, and above, and beyond what is 
implied, necessarily, in regeneration. This, 
however, needs to be further guarded and 
explained as follows : 

1. This progress is made in the strength 
of God, by grace constantly supplied through 
faith in Christ, and by the influence of the 
truth, and the power of the Holy Spirit, 
who is the efficient agent in sanctification. 

2. It is gradual, as above described, not 
in the sense of making equal and even pro- 
gress, through each day, week, month, or 
year, but in the sense of a succession of victo- 
ries over our internal foes, and a succession 
of larger and larger blessings, or deeper and 
deeper baptisms of the Holy Spirit, until the 
work is finished, in the full sense of the defi- 
nition of sanctification, which has been pre- 
viously given. 

3. This progressive work may be cut 
short and finished at any moment, when the 



intelligence clearly comprehends the defects 
of the present state, and faith, comprehend- 
ing the power and willingness of God to 
sanctify us wholly, and do it now, is exer- 
cised. This faith, of course, is exercised in 
God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, rely- 
ing upon the merits of his death, and expect- 
ing the work to be wrought by the agency 
of the Holy Spirit which he promised to 
send, and which he has sent, and does send. 
This vicAv explains how sanctification may 
be both gradual and instantaneous. It may 
not be safely affirmed that it cannot take 
place at the moment of regeneration, yet it 
is clear that it very rarely does. If the in- 
telligence did then comprehend the necessity 
of the entire work, and faith was exercised 
accordingly, it would take place, but this is 
not likely to be the case. The awakened 
sinner has his mind mainly directed to the 
guilt of his sin, and his inability to save 
himself without God, and cries to God for 
pardon and a new heart. Faith is limited 
by the view his intelligence takes of his ne- 
cessity and the work Avrought, and the 
blessing obtained, are according to the faith 
exercised. With most persons it may be 
presumed that their view of the whole sub- 
ject, at the time of their conversion, may be 
expressed in these few words, " I am a sin- 
ner lost, Christ is a Saviour, who died to 
save me ; able and willing to save now. 
Lord, for Christ's sake, save me this mo- 
ment." Subsequently, the necessity of a 
deeper work, as illustrated in the supposed 
case of the man of passion, converted at 
the age of forty, is seen and felt. At any 
time when the intelligence comprehends 
what is wanting to constitute a state of en- 
tire sanctification, and faith is exercised, the 
work will be finished. The end may be 
reached by a succession of these instantane- 
ous adv^ances towards it, as light increases 
and faith is exercised ; or it may be reached 
at once, when light and faith are sufficiently 
clear, comprehensive and powerful. 

4. This state of entire sanctification, does 
not place the sanctified beyond tlie power 
of temptation from influences without ; it 



CHAP. VIII.] 



SALTATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



215 



only subdues and expels all tlie foes within. 
Adam could have had no foes within, until 
they were admitted from without, and so 
may it be with those who are sanctified 
wholly, in spirit, soul, and body. In this 
state, all is right and peace within. The 
will is right at the moment of regeneration, 
and it must remain right, or wilful sin will 
be the result, and justification will be lost ; 
but while the will is right, the propensities, 
passions and appetites, may struggle against 
the decisions of the will, and keep up a 
warfare within, and these must be subdued. 
The will can and does resist them in a re- 
generate state, but it cannot silence them, 
renew, or change their direction, by an act 
of volition. These belong to the soul, and 
must be brought into harmony with right, 
and the sanctified will, before the whole 
soul can be said to be sanctified, or to be 
entirely consecrated to God. When this 
work is wrought, then the war within will 
cease, and there will be a development of 
all the Christian virtues, in such a state 
of strength and maturity, as to exclude 
the opposite vices. There will be love 
without hatred, submission without rebel- 
lion, faith without unbelief, humility without 
pride, meekness without anger, patience 
without impatience, and peace, without con- 
tention, strife, or wrath. 

5. This state of entire sanctification, does 
not preclude a further growth. It ends the 
warfare within, and leaves the whole soul, 
with all its passions, to be led on in the 
path of holiness, while increasing intelli- 
gence points out the way, as it obtains 
clearer and higher views of human duty 
and destiny, and the regenerated will presses 
the whole soul on to knov\r and enjoy more 
of God. When the embarrassments are 
thus removed out of the soul itself, progress 
will be more rapid, every virtue may in- 
crease in strength and brightness, and the 
will may become stronger and stronger, in 
its determination in the direction of holi- 
ness. 

6. As a concluding remark under this 
head, let it be observed, that the above ex- 



position of entire sanctification, appears to 
accord with Christian experience. It ac- 
cords with the experience of those who 
have not reached the state. If the whole 
number of Christians were consulted, at or 
near the time of their conversion, few, if 
any, would be found to believe themselves 
to have been wholly sanctified at the time 
of their conversion, or to have been freed 
from all depravity, yet they feel confident 
that their sins have been forgiven, and that 
they love God. Whatever may be their 
creed, whatever may be their philosophy of 
regeneration and sanctification, if they are 
real Christians, experience has but one lan- 
guage ; they feel, they are conscious that 
they love God and enjoy his favor, yet that 
they have not attained all that is implied in 
entire sanctification, as taught in the Scrip- 
tures, and as it has been explained above. 

If the experience of those who have ob- 
tained this great blessing of entire sanctifi- 
cation, were consulted, it would doubtless be 
found to accord with the explanation above 
given. But this is a point which is likely 
to be fully comprehended, by those only, who 
enjoy a state of entire sanctification, and 
need not be further pressed. 

III. The proof that entire sanctification 
may be attained and enjoyed in this life, 

1. God is able to sanctify believers wholly. 
It will not be denied that God is omnipo- 
tent, and of course can do anything and 
everything which comes within the bounds 
of moral propriety. If it be right and de- 
sirable that saints should be wholly sancti- 
fied in this life, omnipotence can do it. We 
also have a practical development of this 
power, in the work of regeneration. It 
has been seen that all agree that regenera- 
tion is sanctification in part, and that every 
regenerate person is in part sanctified. It 
is admitted that the guilt of sin is removed, 
and that the power of sin is broken, so that 
sin ceases to have dominion over the regen- 
erate. This being admitted, the greater 
part of the work is done, so far as the pow- 
er of God is concerned. If God has moral 
might to break the power of sin in the soul, 



216 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



[book II. 



and deliver the soul from its control, he 
must be able to deliver entirely from all 
sin. If God can save men from most of 
their sins, and from the greatest of their 
sins, he must be able to save from the smal- 
ler number and from the least in magnitude. 
This reasoning would appear conclusive, if 
left to make its own impression upon the 
common sense of the reader, but the fact is 
clearly asserted in the Scriptures. 

2 Cor. ix. 8 : " And God is able to make 
all grace abound toward you ; that ye, al 
ways having all-sufficiency in all things, may 
abound to every good work." 

2 Cor. X. 5 : " Casting down imagina- 
tions, and every high thing that exalteth it- 
self against the knowledge of God, and 
bringing into captivity every thought to the 
obedience of Christ." 

Eph.iii. 16-20: ''That he would grant 
you, according to the riches of his glory, to 
be strengthened with might by his Spirit in 
the inner man ; That Christ may dwell in 
your hearts by faith ; that ye, being rooted 
and grounded in love, may be able to com- 
prehend with all saints, what is the breadth, 
and length, and depth, and height ; and to 
know the love of Christ, which passeth 
knowledge, that ye might be filled with all 
the fullness of God. Now unto him that is 
able to do exceeding abundantly above all 
that we ask or think ; according to the 
power that worketh in us." 

The above Scriptures clearly compre- 
hend the blessing of entire sanctification, 
and declare that God is able to bestow it. 

2. God has clearly promised a state of 
entire sanctification. 

This blessing was promised under the Old 
Testament covenant. Gen. xviii. 1, 2 : " The 
Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto 
him, I am the Almighty Cod : walk before 
me, and be thou perfect. And I will make 
my covenant between me and thee." 

This covenant was with Abraham and 
his seed forever. Now as God on entering 
into covenant commanded him to walk be- 
fore him and be perfect, the covenant itself 
must have secured the blessing of a perfect 



state of all such as take hold upon it by 
faith to the extent of its provisions. In 
perfect accordance with this view of the 
covenant, do we find the gracious promises 
of God. Deut. xxx. 6 : " And the Lord 
thy God will circumcise thine heart, and 
the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord 
thy God with all thine heart, and with all 
thy soul, that thou mayest live." 

This clearly includes what is called being 
made perfect in love. Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27 : 
" Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, 
and ye shall be clean : from all your filthi- 
ness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse 
you. A new heart also will I give you, and 
a new spirit will I put within you : and I 
will take away the stony heart out of your 
flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. 
And I will put my Spirit within you, and 
cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye 
shall keep my judgments, and do them." 1 
Thes. V. 23, 24 : " And the very God of 
peace sanctify you wholly : and I pray God 
your whole spirit and soul and body be pre- 
served blameless unto the coming of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that 
calleth you, who also will do it." 

This text implies a promise. Paul prays 
for the blessing of entire sanctification, and 
true prayer is based upon the covenant 
promises, But the declaration that God is 
faithful and will do it, implies that God has 
promised it, and shows that Paul had his 
eye on the promise when he uttered the 
prayer. When God is said to be faithful, 
it is always with reference to his covenant 

1 l^romises. 1 John i. 8, 9. " If we say 
that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, 
and the truth is not in us. If we confess 
our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us 
our sins, and to cleanse us from all unright- 
eousness." 

The expression, " he is faithful iand just," 
clearly implies that the thing is secure'd by 
promise, and that the promise reaches, not 
only to the pardon of sin, but comprehends 
the act of cleansing us from all unrighteous- 
ness." 

3. God has commanded us to be sanctified 



CHAP. VIII.] 



SALTATION BY GEACE DEFENDED. 



217 



■wholly, to be perfect, to be holy. Matt. v. 
48 : " Be ye therefore perfect, even as your 
Father in heaven which is perfect." 

Eon), xii. 1, 2 : "I beseech you there- 
fore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that 
ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, 
holy, acceptable unto God, which is your 
reasonable service. And be not conformed 
to this world : but be ye transformed by the 
renewing of your mind, that ye may prove 
what is that good, and acceptable, and per- 
fect will of God." 

This text contemplates nothing short of 
entire conformity to the will of God. 

2 Cor. vii. 1 : " Having therefore these 
promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse our- 
selves from all filthiness of the flesh and 
spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." 

This text was addressed to Christians, 
and yet it is clear that there is a state of 
purity from all filthiness of the flesh and 
spirit, and of perfected holiness, which may 
be reached in this life, which they had not 
attained, or which it was possible, that they 
as Christians, had not attained. When a 
Christian is cleansed from all filthiness of 
the flesh and spirit, and has perfected holi- 
ness in the fear of God, he has reached a 
state of entire sanctification. 

Chap. xiii. 11 : " Finally, brethren, fare- 
well. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be 
of one mind, live in peace ; and the God of 
love and peace shall be with you." 

If Paul aimed at expressing any defi- 
nite idea by being perfect, he must have 
meant being made perfect in love, or a state 
of entire consecration to God. 

Heb. vi. 1 : " Let us go on unto perfection.' 
What can we understand by perfection, un- 
less it be entire sanctification ? 

James i. 4 : " But let patience have her 
perfect work, that ye may be perfect and 
entire, wanting nothing." 

This is very comprehensive, and ex- 
presses the idea by three different terms. 
They were to be perfect, which denotes all 
they were required to be, just what they 
ought to be. Then they were to be entire, 
which denotes every part of what was nec- 



essary to make them perfect. And then 
to make the sense still more full if possible, 
the Apostle adds, " wanting nothing." 
Those who are wanting in nothing to com- 
plete their Christian character or state, 
must be entirely sanctified. 

1 Peter i. 15, 16 : " But as he which 
hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all 
manner of conversation ; because it is writ- 
ten, Be ye holy ; for I am holy." 

In the light of the above Scriptures it 
cannot be denied that Christian perfection, 
entire sanctification or consecration to God, 
is commanded, as a Christian duty. 

4. The Scriptures teach that the attain- 
ment of a state of entire sanctification is a 
proper subject of prayer. This is princi- 
pally taught by example, in the prayers of 
inspired men. 

In the prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
which he offerered upon the eve of his pas- 
sion, we have these remarkable words in 
regard to his disciples. John xvii. 23 : 
" I in them, and thou in me, that they may 
be made perfect in one ; and that the world 
may know that thou hast sent me, and hast 
loved them as thou hast loved me." 

Perfection in unity is the principle 
thought in this text. 

Psalms li. 2, 7, 10 : " Wash me thor- 
oughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me 
from my sin. Purge me with hyssop, and 
I shall be clean : wash me, and I shall be 
whiter than snow. Create in me a clean 
heart, God ; and renew a right spirit 
within me." 

It may be said that David was fallen at 
the time he uttered this prayer, and that he 
prayed for pardon. This may be true, but 
still his prayer comprehends more than 
pardon. He appears to charge his fall 
upon his inate depravity, which still re- 
mained in him, and now he' prays for a 
more thorough work. He asks for a clean 
heart, and no heart is clean where any de- 
gree of sin remains. 

Col. iv. 12 : " Epaphras, who is one of 
you a servant of Christ, saluteth you, 
always labouring fervently for you in 



218 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



[book II. 



prayers, that ye may stand perfect and com- 
plete in all the will of God." 

The object of his prayers was that they 
might enjoy and maintain perfection and 
completeness in all the will of God. This 
certainly must exclude all sin. 

1 Thcs. V. 23 : " And the very God of 
peace sanctify you wholly ; and I pray God 
your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be 
preserved blameless uuto the coming of our 
Lord Jesus Christ." 

Here Paul clearly prayed for entire sanc- 
tification on behalf of his brethren at Thes- 
salonica. 

Heb. xiii. 20, 21 : '' Now the God of 
peace, that brought again from the dead 
our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the 
sheep, through the blood of the everlasting 
covenant. Make you perfect in every good 
work to do his will, working in you that 
which is well-pleasing in his sight, through 
Jesus Christ : to whom be glory forever 
and ever. Amen." 

Such a text needs no comment to make 
it express the doctrine of entire consecra- 
tion to God. The state of Christian attain- 
ment prayed for, is looked for as the result 
of the work of God within. 

It will hardly bo affirmed that we are 
thus encouraged to pray for what is not 
attainable. 

Mark xi. 24 : " What things soever ye 
desire, when ye pray, believe that ye [will] 
receive them, and ye shall have them." 

This text is a sufficient comment upon 
all the prayers offered up for entire sancti- 
fication. 

5. The Scriptures teach us that some 
did attain to a state of entire sanctification 
in olden times. 

Gen. V. 2-1 : " And Enoch walked with 
God, and he was not : for God took him." 
It would be a fair inference to conclude 
that he was wholly consecrated to God. 
We are told in verse 22, " that Enoch 
walked with God three hundred years." 

2 Kings ii. 11 : " And it came to pass, 
as they still went on, and talked, that, be- 



horses of fire, and parted them both asun- 
der ; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind 
into heaven." 

It would not be an unwarrantable in- 
ference to conclude that Elijah was sancti- 
fied wholly on earth. 

Job i. 1, 8 : " There was a man in the 
land of Uz, whose name was Job ; and 
that man was perfect and upright, and one 
that feared God, and eschewed evil. And 
the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou con- 
sidered my servant Job, that there is none 
like him in the earth, a perfect and an up- 
right man, one that feareth God and es- 
cheweth evil ?" 

It is certain that God found no fault 
with Job. How much remaining sin 
would be found, if one like Job was put in 
the crucible of modern theology and tested ? 

Luke i. 6 : " And they were both righte- 
ous before God, walking in all the com- 
mandments and ordinances of the Lord 
blameless." 

This is said of Zacharias and Elizabeth. 
Some have supposed that Zacharias could 
not have been perfect, because he did not 
believe the angel as described in verse 20. 
If it be allowed that moral dereliction is in- 
volved, it does not prove that they were 
not perfect prior to that interview with the 
angel. The doctrine of perfection under 
consideration does not pretend to secure the 
perfect against the possibility of a relapse. 

But the Scriptures teach that some have 
been perfect in the sense of entire consecra- 
tion to God, in another and more general 
manner. It is by referring to unnamed 
persons as perfect, as though the fact that 
there is such a class, were understood. 

Psalm XXX vii. 37 : " Mark the perfect 
man, and behold the upright : for the end 
of that man is peace." 

Psalm cxix. 2, 3 ; " Blessed are they 
that keep his testimonies, and that seek him 
with the whole heart. They also do no ini- 
quity : they walk in his ways." 

ProY. ii. 21 : " For the upright shall 
dwell in the land, and the perfect shall re- 



hold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and : main in it. 



CHAP. VIII.] 



SALVATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



219 



Chap. xi. 5 : " The righteousness of the 
perfect shall direct his way ; but the wick- 
ed shall fall by his own wickedness." 

1 Cor. ii. 6 : " Howbeit we speak wis- 
dom among them that are perfect : yet not 
the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes 
of this world that come to nought." 

Phil. iii. 15: " Let us therefore, as many 
as be perfect, be thus minded : and if in 
anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall 
reveal even this unto you." 

1 John i. 7 : " But if we walk in the 
light, as he is in the light, we have fellow- 
ship one with another, and the blood of 
Jesus Christ bis Son cleanseth us from all 
sin." 

Chap. ii. 5 : " But whoso keepeth his 
word, in him verily is the love of God per- 
fected : hereby know we that we are in 
him." 

Chap. iii. 3 : " And every man that hath 
this hope in him, purifieth himself, even as 
he is pure." 

Chap. iv. 17, 18 : " Herein is our love 
made perfect, that we may have boldness in 
the day of judgment : because as he is, so 
are we in this world. There is no fear in 
love ; but perfect love casteth out fear ; be- 
cause fear hath torment. He that feareth 
is not made perfect in love." 

A special comment upon each of the 
above texts is unnecessary ; they clearly 
teach that there were persons in the times 
of the writers who were perfect, in the Bi- 
ble sense of perfection as applied to the 
children of God. This perfection was a 
perfection in obedience, a perfection in love, 
a being " cleansed from all unrighteousness, 
and from all sin." This is all that is 
claimed, and at this state let both writer 
and reader aim, and never rest satisfied 
short of its full enjoyment. Amen. 

SECTION VI. 

Tlie case of Infants and the Heathen con- 
sidered. 

The Gospel offers salvation, through Je- 
sus Christ, to those to whom it is preached, 
upon its own peculiar terms, which have 



been considered in preceding sections. But 
it is perfectly plain that infants and the 
heathen who never hear the Gospel, con- 
stitute exceptions to the conditions and 
manner of salvation, as they have been ex- 
hibited in the preceding part of this chap- 
ter. All that has been said, beginning 
with justification by faith, and closing with 
entire sanctification, has reference to those 
who hear the Gospel, and who are capable of 
believing or rejecting it. Infants are inca- 
pable of complying with any conditions, 
and heathens cannot comply with the con- 
ditions of the Gospel, as such, until the Gos- 
pell is made known to them. The case of 
both these must be met in some way other 
than upon the principle of the Gospel com- 
mission, " He that believeth shall be saved, 
and he that believeth not shall be damned." 
Reason and revelvation agree, that the atone- 
ment is an adequate remedy for the fall of 
all men, and so far as its consequences have 
come upon all men, so far must the atone- 
ment reach. So far as men are injured by 
the fall, without their personal crime, and 
under circumstances which do not admit of 
their complying with the conditions of the 
Gospel, as presented to those to whom it is 
preached, so far must the atonement uncon- 
ditionally remove those consequences. The 
thought is, that the atonement will secure 
for every human being a final destiny, not 
less advantageous than would have been the 
result had Adam not sinned, unless the 
failure be the consequence of personal neg- 
lect or crime. 

Rom. V. 18, 20 : " Therefore, as by the 
offence of one, judgment came upon ail 
men to condemnation; even so by the 
righteousness of one, the free gift came 
upon all men unto justification of life. 
Where sin abounded, grace did much more 
abound." 

I. The salvation of all such as die before 
they have intelligence enough to render 
them morally accountable agents, are saved 
by the atonement. That all infants are 
saved, we have the highest authority. 

Matt. xix. 14 : " But Jesus said, suffer 



220 



SALTATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



[book II. 



little children, and forbid them not to come 
unto me, for of such is the kingdom of 
heaven," 

This text is also found, Mark x. 14, 
and Luke xviii. 16. It clearly asserts the 
salvation of infants. It is not necessary to 
settle the question, whether we are to un- 
derstand the Christian church, or heaven, 
by the term " Kingdom of Heaven." One 
or the other is certainly meant, and the 
consequence is the same in either case, so 
far as the destiny of infants is concerned. 

If we understand Christ's spiritual king- 
dom on earth, which is his church, then in- 
fants must share in the spiritual benefits of 
his atonement, and as they belong to his 
kingdom here, they will certainly belong to 
it in the future state, if they die before they 
commit sin, and nmst be eternally saved. 
If by the Kingdom of Heaven we understand 
the kingdom of glory, heaven in the future 
state, then the declaration, " of such is the 
Kingdom of Heaven," affirms their eternal 
salvation. 

It is truly wonderful that any class of 
Christians should ever have believed that 
there are reprobate infants, or that infants 
are doomed to eternal woe by a just, good 
and holy God, yet, such a sentiment ap- 
pears to have been held by some. In the 
Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian 
church, in the United States, chap. x. sec. 
3, -We find these words : " Elect infants, dy- 
ing in infancy, are regenerated and saved 
by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh 
when, and where, and how he pleaseth." 

These words clearly imply that there are 
non-elect, or reprobate infants, and that 
they are not regenerated and saved by 
Christ. It has, of course, always been a 
difficult task for those who hold the doc- 
trine of infant damnation, to dispose of the 
text above quoted, and their efforts have 
only exposed the weakness of their cause. 

The only attempt which has been made 
to evade the force of the text in proof of 
infant salvation worthy of notice, is based 
upon the assumption that the expression, 
" of such is the kino-dom of heaven," does 



not include infants. The sense, in the hands 
of these critics is, infants form no part of 
the kingdom of heaven, but the kingdom of 
heaven is composed of such as are like these 
infants. " Of such is the Kingdom of Heav- 
en," that is, persons like these infants. 
Even the Eev. Albert Barnes, in his. note 
on the text, has adopted this construction, 
by which he has left a chance for infant 
damnation, a doctrine which he does not 
avow. 

That the language would bear this con- 
struction, if the connection required to make 
good sense, need not be denied, but such is 
not the case. The language will bear equally 
well the sense we give it, and the connec- 
tion absolutely requires it. The words were 
spoken as a reason for allowing children to 
be brought to him, but it would be no rea- 
son at all, to affirm that others, not chil- 
dren, who composed the Kingdom of Heav- 
en, were in some respects like these children. 
The sense clearly is, the Kingdom of Heav- 
en is composed of such. Children, is un- 
derstood. Of such children is the King- 
dom of Heaven. If they belonged to the 
Kingdom of God, it was a good reason Vv^hy 
they should be allowed to be brought to 
Christ, but because some other class of per- 
sons composed the Kingdom of Heaven, 
who were like them, in some particulars^ 
would not be a good reason. It is then 
clear that Christ asserts that infants belong 
to the Kingdom of Heaven, and it follows 
that all who die before they have light en- 
ough to become personally guilty, are saved. 

This, viewed in connection with Paul's 
parallel between Adam and Christ, noticed 
above, must be entirely conclasive. Spec- 
ulations as to the manner in which infants 
are saved, can be of no practical use, the 
fact is plain, and that is enough. The Gos- 
pel is addressed to adults, and not to infants, 
and hence it proposes to them no terms, and 
gives no explanation of the manner of their 
salvation. It leaves their salvation with 
the simple statement of the fact, that " of 
such is the Kingdom of Heaven," to rest 
upon the general principles of the Gospel. 



CHAP. YIII.] 



SALTATION BY GRACE DEFENDED. 



221 



If we had a Gospel for infants, that Gos- 
pel would, doubtless, explain their case. 

It has been asked, in what moral condi- 
tion infants are born. The answer is, they 
are born with natural, inherited propensi- 
ties, which, if developed in connection with 
sufficient understanding and light to consti- 
tute moral accountability, would declare 
them depraved and guilty. That they are 
depraved, so far as the possession of tlio 
propensity to evil constitutes depravity, there 
can be no doubt ; but that they are de- 
praved, in the sense of being guilty, is not 
true. 

Upon this state of facts it has often been 
asked, are infants born in a justified state ? 
Tt is certain that they are not, in a strict 
Gospel sense, for the simple reason that they 
were never guilty or condemned. Gospel 
justification is a pardon, a remission of de- 
served punishment, but infants cannot be 
born justified in this sense, because they 
never sinned, and never had any personal 
guilt to remove, or deserved punishment to 
have remitted. They are born justified only 
iu the general sense of not being born 
guilty. 

Upon the state of facts now spread be- 
fore the reader, it has been asked, are infants 
born holy ? They certainly do not possess 
active holiness, for they can neither compre- 
hend a moral law, or feel the force of moral 
obligation. But have they not a kind of 
passive holiness, consisting in the purity of 
their nature, as a sheet of white paper is 
pure, though it is liable to have either good 
or bad sentiments written upon its page 
Certainly not, if as has been remarked, the 
soul inherits propensities to evil, which de- 
velope depravity so soon as there is light 
enough to involve moral accountability. 
It is then asked, are infants born fit for 
heaven ? It must follow, from the above 
that they are not. A soul possessed of pro- 
pensities to evil, cannot be fit for heaven 
without a change, just such a change as the 
Holy Ghost alone can effect. How, or at 
what moment this change takes place, God 
has never revealed to us, inasmuch as he has 



given us no gospel for infants. The fact 
being clear that they are saved, it follows as 
a necessary consequence, that when they die 
in infancy, God does, at some point of time, 
in some way, fit them for heaven. If the 
elect infants, as Oalvinists suppose, can be 
fitted for heaven, the same process may an- 
swer for all, and I will adopt the language 
of the Presbyterian Articles of Faith, quo- 
ted above, concerning " elect infants," only 
understanding it as applying to all that die 
in infancy. It reads thus, " Those dying in 
infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ 
through the Spirit, who worketh when, and 
where, and how he pleaseth." This is all 
the explanation that can be given of the 
subject, and it is enough, and here let it 
rest. 

II. The atonement of Christ so reaches 
the case of heathen, as to save such as live 
up to the light they have, if any such there 
are. 

It is not affirmed that heathen who never 
hear the Gospel, are as likely to be saved 
as those to whom the Gospel is preached, 
nor is it affirmed that heathen are saved, 
but only that the atonement so far reaches 
their case, as to secure the light of the Spir- 
it, to some extent at least, and to save them 
if they act perfectly honest and conscien- 
tious, in view of the light they have. The 
heathen that are lost, are not lost as a nec- 
essary consequence of the sin of Adam, nor 
yet as a necessary consequence of not hear- 
ing the Gospel, which they never had an op- 
portunity to hear, but for acting contrary 
to their own convictions of right. This 
theory is not only based upoii common sense, 
and the most simple notions of justice, but 
it is most clearly asserted by St. Paul, upon 
whose authority it shall be left to repose. 

Eom. ii. 11-15 : " For there is no respect 
of persons with God. For as many as 
have sinned without law, shall also perish 
without law : and as many as have sinned 
in the law, shall be judged by the law ; for 
not the hearers of the law are just before 
God, but the doers of the law shall be jus- 
tified. For when the Gentses, which have 



222 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



not the law, do by nature the things con- 
tained in the law, these, having not the law, 
are a law unto themselves : which show the 
work of the law written in their hearts, 
their conscience also bearing witness, and 
their thoughts the meanwhile accushig or 
else excusing one another." 

All that is asked for this remarkable text, 
is that it be understood in its most obvious 
sense, and not explained away, or darkened 
by words without knowledge. Thus under- 
stood, it clearly proves that those who have 
no written law, have light enough to make 
them responsible for their conduct, and con- 
sequently light enough to lead them to sal- 
vation, if they were to follow it with an 
honest purpose of heart. If any of the 
heathen do according to their honest con- 
victions of right, they will be saved. But 
it does not follow that the heathen nations 
will be saved, nor that they are as likely to 
be saved without the Gospel as with it 
If any are saved, as there may be some, the 
number is very small, in comparison with 
the results that follow the faithful preaching 
of the Gospel. 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE WORLD OF SPIRITS. THE FUTURE STATE. 

SECTION I. 
The Existence and Employment of Angels. 

I. There is a class of created intelligences, 
who inhabit the Spirit world, and who have 
often been sent with messages to this world, 
from God, their Creator. The common 
Scriptural name of this class of beings is 
angels. 

The necessity of proving this fact would 
never have occurred, had it not been posi- 
tively denied, by those who profess to be- 
lieve the Scriptures of the Old and Nev/ 
Testament. The obvious connection be- 



tween good and evil spirits, the existence, 
of holy and fallen angels, or devils, and the 
manifest bearing which the existence of dev- 
ils, has upon the question of the punish- 
ment of sinners, has led one class of Uni- 
versalists to deny the existence of angels. 
This they do to blot out all proof derived 
from this source, in support of the doctrine 
that sin will be punished in a future state. 
These facts render it proper to commence 
what is designed to be a thorough examina- 
tion of all the questions connected with a 
future state, with a brief demonstration of 
the existence of angels. It will be necessa- 
ry to notice but a few of the many texts 
which refer to angels. They are found scat- 
tered through the Old and New Testaments, 
and a selection shall be made from both. 

The Hebrew word translated angel, in the 
Old Testament, is malach. It comes from 
laach, which signifies to send forth ; hence, 
malach, angel, signifies a messenger, one 
sent. Angels are so called, because they 
were first revealed to man, as the messengers 
of God. A few texts may now be intro- 
duced, in which the word occurs and is ren- 
dered angel. 

Gen. xxii. 11 : " And the angel of the 
Lord called unto him out of heaven, and 
said, Abraham, Abraham : and he said, 
here am I." 

This transpired when Abraham held the 
lifted knife in his hand to sacrifice his son 
Isaac, and the angel could have been no 
man, no human messenger. 

Gen. xxiv. 7 : " The Lord God (^f heaven, 
which took me from my father's house, and 
from the land of my kindred, and which 
spake unto me, and that sware unto me, 
saying. Unto thy seed will I give this land, 
he shall send his angel before thee; and 
thou shalt take a wife unto my son from 
thence." 

Nothing but a belief, on the part of 
Abraham, in the existence of angels, and 
that God employs them as human guides, 
could have justified the patriarch in the use 
of such language. He could not have re- 
ferred to any man or human messenger. 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



223 



Exo. xxiii. 20 : " Beliold, I send an angel 
before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to 
bring thee into the place which I have pre- 
pared." 

In the Book of Judges, xiii. 3-20, we 
have an account of an angel, which appeared 
to Manoah and his wife, which can leave no 
room to doubt that it was a being from the 
spirit world. He is several times called a 
man of God, but it was while they were in 
doubt as to his real character. 

The writer of the Book of Judges com- 
mences, by affirming that " the angel of the 
Lord appeared unto the woman." Yerso 3. 

In verse 6, she calls him " a man of God," 
but says, " his countenance was like the 
countenance of an angel of God." 

In verse 9, the writer calls him the angel 
of God." 

In verse 15, Manoah proposed to prepare 
food for the angel, for it is said, verse 16, 
that " Manoah knew not that he was an an- 
gel of God." Then comes the closing scene, 
as follows : 

Yerses 19, 20 : " So Manoah took a kid, 
with a meat-offering, and offered it upon a 
rock unto the Lord : and the angel did 
wondrously ; and Manoah and his wife 
looked on. For it came to pass, when the 
flame went up toward heaven from off" the 
altar, that the angel of the Lord ascended 
in the flame of the altar : and Manoah and 
his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces 
to the ground. (But the angel of the Lord 
did no more appear to Manoah and to his 
wife.) Then Manoah knew that he was an 
angel of the Lord." 

The being here described as ascending in 
the flame of the altar, cannot have been a 
human being, an inhabitant of this world. 

In 2 Sam. xxiv. 15-17, we have a case 
recorded, where God used an angel as a 
minister of his wrath, as follows : 

" So the Lord sent a pestilence upon 
Israel, from the morning even to the time 
appointed : and there died of the people, 
from Dan even to Beer-sheba, seventy thou- 
sand men. And when the angel stretched 
out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, 



the Lord repented him of the evil, and said 
to the angel that destroyed the people. It ia 
enough ; stay now thine hand. And the 
angel of the Lord was by the threshing-place 
of Araunah the Jebusite. And David spake 
unto the Lord, when he saw the angel that 
smote the people, and said, Lo, I have sin- 
ned, and I have done wickedly : but these 
sheep, what have they done? Let thine 
hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against 
my father's house." 

It cannot be pretended that it was a man 
that smote the whole land with pestilence, 
who also stretched out his hand over Jeru- 
ralem to smite it also ; yet was it an angel 
that smote the people, and David saw him. 

We have another undeniable case record- 
ed in Isa. xxxvii. 36 : " Then the angel of 
the Lord went forth, and smote in the camp 
of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore 
and five thousand : and when they arose 
early in the morning, behold, they were all 
dead corpses." 

The sense of the last clause is, that when 
the remainder of the army, not slain, arose 
early in the morning, theammber mentioned 
as slain, were all dead corpses. The num- 
ber slain, one hundred and eighty-four thou- 
sand, proves that it was not effected by 
human agency, and that the angel must have 
been a being of great power from the spirit 
world. 

Dan. vi. 22 : " My God hath sent his an- 
gel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that 
they have not hurt me : forasmuch as be- 
fore him innocency was found in me ; and 
also before thee, king, have I done no 
hurt." 

This could have been nothing but a spirit- 
ual being, no other being could have en- 
tered the den of lions, no human agency 
could have been available against the lions. 
One more text from the Old Testament 
must suffice on this point, and it is, 

Dan. ix. 20, 21 : " And while I was speak- 
ing, and praying, and confessing my sin and 
the sin of my people Israel, and presenting 
my supplication before the Lord my God 
for the holy mountain of my God; Yea, 



224 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book ii. 



while I was speaking in prayer, even tlie 
man Gabriel, wliom I liad seen in the vision 
at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, 
touched me about the time of the evening 
oblation." 

Ii is true, Daniel calls him "the man 
Gabriel," yet the person was an angel be- 
yond doubt. Daniel calls his name Gabriel, 
and when we come to examine the New 
Testament, we shall find an angel announc- 
ing himself to Zacharias by the same name. 

The reader's attention is noAV invited to the 
use of the word in the New Testament, and 
to some of the accounts given of the appear- 
ance of angels. 

The word in Greek is angclos, and corre- 
sponds in sense to the Hebrew word already 
noticed. It signifies a messenger, but is al- 
most exclusively used in the New Testament 
to denote angels, as messengers from the 
spirit world. It occurs in one hundred and 
eighty texts, and is translated messenger 
eight times, and in every other case it is 
translated angel. A few only of the many 
texts need be noticed. 

When Christ had been tempted forty days 
in the wilderness, it is said, " angels came 
and ministered unto him." Matt. iv. 11. 
Had it been men or women, they would not 
have been called angels. An angel appeared 
to Zacharias in the temple, and that it was 
no human angel is certain, from his own de- 
claration. 

Luke i. 19 : " And the angel answering, 
said unto him, I am Gabriel that stand in 
the presence of God." 

From the 26th verse, we learn that the 
same angel was sent to Mary, the mother of 
Jesus, and the language is too expressive to 
be explained away. It is said, " the angel 
Gabriel was sent from God." 

Luke ii. 8-15, furnishes the most conclu- 
sive proof of angels, who sometimes visit 
earth as messengers from the spirit world. 
An angel was sent to the shepherds at night, 
to inform them of the birth of Christ. It is 
said, verse 9 : " the angel of the Lord came 
upon them and the glory of the Lord shone 
round about them; and they were sore 



afraid." Here is clear proof that it was 
not a felloAV-man, but a messenger from the 
world of spirits that appeared to them. 

When the angel had delivered his message, 
it is declared, verse 13 : " Suddenly there 
was with the angel a multitude of the hea- 
venly host, praising God." These were a 
band of angels, because it is said, verse 15 : 
" It came to pass as the angels were gone 
away from them into heaven." But one 
angel is named as first appearing, hence, 
the angels that went away were the multi- 
tude of the heavenly host. And, observe, 
they did not go away to their homes in the 
city, or town, or country, but they went 
away into heaven ; they were, therefore^ not 
of this world, but messengers from the spirit 
world. 

In connection with the resurrection of 
Christ, we have the following scene : 

Matt, xxviii. 2-4 : " And, behold, there 
was a great earthquake : for the angel of 
the Lord descended from heaven, and came 
and rolled back the stone from the door, 
and sat upon it. His countenance was like 
lightning, and his raiment white as snow : 
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, 
and became as dead." 

There is no possible ground to doubt that 
this angel was a messenger from the throne 
of God. That he was no human being is 
very certain. He was " the angel of the 
Lord from heaven." " His countenance 
was like lightning, and his raiment white 
as snow." 

When the Apostles were in prison, it is 
said. Acts v. 19, 20 : " But the angel of the 
Lord by night opened the prison-doors, and 
brought them forth, and said. Go, stand and 
speak in the temple to the people all the 
words of this life." 

To suppose that this was the work of a 
man, called the angel of the Lord, would be 
to suppose that there were human Christian 
agencies at work superior to the apostles, 
which cannot be true, as they were the head 
of all human authority. 

The vision of Cornelius, recorded. Acts x. 
3, is another clear case. 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



225 



The case of Peter, recorded, Acts xii. 7- 
11, is a perfectly clear case. Peter was in 
prison, sleeping between two soldiers, bound 
with two chains. The angel of the Lord 
came upon hira, and a light shown in the 
prison, his chains fell off, and the iron gate 
opened to them of his own accord. All the 
circumstances prove that it was no human 
agency, or human messenger, that is called 
the angel of the Lord. A man entering a 
prison with false keys to deliver his friend, 
would not display a light in the prison ; he 
could not speak to his friend without being 
heard by the soldiers, between whom he was 
sleeping, and the iron gate would not open 
of his own accord. It is clear, then, that 
this must have been an angel from the spirit 
world. One reference more shall close this 
aspect of the subject. 

Eev. X. 1, 2, 5: ''And I saw another 
mighty angel come down from heaven, 
cloathed with a cloud : and a rainbow was 
upon his head, and his face was as it were the 
sun, and his feet as pillars of fire. And he 
set his right foot upon the sea, and his left 
foot on the earth, and lifted up his hand to 
heaven." 

It will not be pretended that this was a 
man, a human messenger, or minister called 
an angel. 

The reader will bear in mind that the 
above texts are only a few selected from 
a vast number of equal clearness and force. 
They are, however, sufficient to prove the 
point, beyond a doubt, that there is a class 
of created intelligences called angels, who 
inhabit the spirit world, and who are often 
sent by God to execute his will in this 
world. 

II. At what date were angels created, is 
a question about which there has been a 
great difference of opinion. To review the 
various opinions, and arguments for each, 
would be a waste of time. The question is 
of little or no practical importance, and the 
true answer is obviously not very clearly 
revealed. Some have held that angels were 
created at a date far back of the creation 
of this world and the dawn of time. Others 
15 



have supposed that angels were created at 
the time this world was made, and that they 
were a part of what is described as the six 
days' work of God. A third class have 
supposed that angels were created at a later 
date than the heavens and the earth, as de- 
scribed by Moses. The first of these opin- 
ions appears to be the true one. 

1. The opinion that angels were created 
subsequently to the creation described by 
Moses, is based upon the fact that he gives 
no account of, and makes no allusion to any 
prior creation, or to any created intelligences 
as previously existing. This is not suffici- 
ent proof, for the Scriptures, as a whole, 
were not given to teach us the doctrine of 
angels, but the origin, duty and destiny of 
humanity, and angels are only incidentally 
alluded to as their destiny reflects light upon 
ours, or as they have been employed by God 
to act in the affairs of men. Moreover, the 
Mosaic account of creation was doubtless 
designed to give the origin of this visible 
state of things, and hence it is limited to 
the system of which this world is a part. 
Moses, in his account of the creation of the 
heavens and the earth, does not even affirm 
the previous existence of God, but takes it 
for granted, for, when he says, " In the be- 
ginning God created the heavens and the 
earth," it is implied that God was. 

2. The opinion that angels were created 
at the time this world was formed, and con- 
stituted a part of the six days' work, is 
founded upon the fact that it is declared, 
Exo. XX. 11, that " in six days the Lord 
made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that 
in them is." 

If it were true that the heaven of which 
Moses speaks, embraces the sphere of an- 
gels, it would follow that their creation was 
a part of the six days' work, but such does 
not appear to be the fact. The heaven 
which Moses affirms God created within the 
six days, is no more than the system of 
worlds of which this earth is a part, while 
angels have their abode beyond these spheres, 
in that world where God has his throne. 
If the heaven of which Moses speaks in- 



226 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



eluded the abode of angels, and if they were 
created at the same time, he would doubt- 
less have made the creation of the angels 
of heaven, as well as the fowls of heaven. 

3. The opinion that angels were created 
at some period prior to the creaiiou descri- 
bed by Moses, is based partly upon the de- 
ductions of reason, and partly upon some 
texts of Scripture which appear to imply or 
allude to the fact. 

As God is necessarily eternal, possessed 
of infinite power, wisdom and goodness, it 
is thought unreasonable that he should let 
infinite ages pass without putting forth his 
creative power, that it was not until within 
about six thousand years that he began to 
produce intelligent beings. This may have 
some force, but it is not conclusive, for hu- 
man reason is too short sighted to see what 
is proper for infinite wisdom to do. 

A more conclusive reason is found in the 
Scriptures. It is pretty clear upon the face 
of the record, that Adam and Eve did not 
remain long in their pristine state before 
the fall. After the ' fall, Cain and Abel 
were born, both grew to be men, and one 
"was " a tiller of the ground," and the other, 
" a keeper of sheep," and Cain killed Abel 
and was banished, before Seth was born ; 
yet the birth of Seth was only one hundred 
and thirty years after Adam was created. 
Now, as " Seth lived a hundred and five 
years" before he begat his first born, it is 
probable that Cain and Abel were of like 
age at the time of the murder and banish- 
ment, which leaves but little or no time to 
have elapsed between the creation of Adam, 
and the fall. Yet prior to the fail there 
were good angels, for God placed cherubims 
to keep the way of the tree of life when he 
'drove Adam out of the garden. It is also 
very clear that there were fallen angels, and 
that they existed in a fallen state before 
Adam fell. It is generally held by Christ- 
ians that the devil, or an evil spirit was 
•concerned in the temptation and fall of 
Adam and Eve. If so, there were fallen 
angels before Adam fell, and as he fell soon 
•after his creation, the presumption is that 



angels were created prior to the creation of 
man. 

There is however, one text which clearly 
implies that there were intelligent beings at 
the time when God commenced the creation 
of this world. It is the words of Jehovah 
himself. 

Job. xxxviii. 4-7 : " Where wast thou 
when I laid the foundations of the earth ? 
declare, if thou hast understanding. Who 
hath laid the measures thereof, if thou 
knowcst ? or who hath stretched the line 
upon it ? Whereupon are the foundations 
thereof fastened ? or who laid the corner- 
stone thereof. When the morning-stars 
sang together, and all the sons of God 
shouted for joy ?" 

This supposes that there were morning- 
stars to sing, and sons of God to shout, 
when the foundation of this world was laid, 
or in other words, when this creation was 
commenced. By these morning-stars and 
sons of God, angels must be meant. 

III. Angels are represented in Scripture 
as a class of beings superior to humanity, 
and as possessed of great power. 

Psal. ciii. 20 : " Bless the Lord, ye his 
angels that excel in strength." 

Heb. i. 7 : " AVho maketh his angels 
spirits and his ministers a flame of fire." 
By ministers angels are meant. They are 
spirits, and as God's ministers they are a 
flame of fire. The few developments of 
their power, which are recorded, prove them 
to possess great power. 

The two angels that came to Sodom 
smote the men around Lot's door with blind- 
ness. Gen. xix. 11 . 

The angel with whom Jacob wrestled but 
touched the hollow of his thigh, and it was 
out of joint. Gen. xxxii. 25. 

One angel, as God's minister of wrath, 
smote the people of Israel from Dan to 
Beer-sheba, and laid seventy thousand low 
in death by the fell sweep of his arm, and 
then stretclied out his hand upon Jerusalem 
to destroy it, when God said, " stay now 
thy hand." 2 Sam. xxiv. 15, 16. 

One angel slew one hundred and eighty- 



CHAP. IX.] 



TTE FUTURE STATE.. 



227 



four thousand in the Assyrian camp in one 
night. Isa. xxxvii. 36. 

Other cases might be named, but these 
are sufficient to show that angels possess 
great power. 

IV. Angels are very numerous. 

The exact number of angels is not re- 
vealed, but that they are very numerous is 
rendered certain. 

When the eyes of the servant of Elisha 
were opened, he saw the mountain full ot 
horses and chariots of fire round about his 
master. 2 Kings vi. 17. 

Psal. Ixviii. 17 : " The chariots of God 
are twenty thousand, even thousands of an- 
gels." 

Daniel, in describing the appearance of 
the " Ancient of days," says, " thousands 
ministered unto him." Chap. vii. 10. 

When Peter stretched out his hand and 
smote the servant of the high priest, Jesus 
said, '• Put up again thy sword into his 
place. Thinkest thou that I cannot now 
pray to my Father, and he shall presently 
give me more than twelve legions of angels." 
Matt. xxvi. 52, 58. 

Paul speaks of Christians as being allied 
" to an innumerable company of angels." 
Heb. xii. 22. 

Rev. V. 11 : " And I beheld and I heard 
the voice of many angels round about the 
throne, and the beasts, and the elders : and 
the number of them was ten thousand times 
ten thousand, and thousands of thousands 

It is worthy of remark, that angels are 
often classified as divided into different or 
ders, and this leaves an impression on the 
mind that they are numerous. 

Paul, in speaking of Christ, Col. i. 16, 
says, " For by him were all things created, 
that are in heaven, and that are in earth, 
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, 
or dominions, or principalities, or powers : 
all things were created by him, and for 
him." 

Thrones, dominions, principalities, and 
powers, are supposed to denote four distinct 
orders or classifications of angels. 

Peter alludes to a similar classification. 



1 Peter iii. 22 : In speaking of Christ, the 
Apostle says, " Who is gone into heaven^ 
and is on the right hand of God ; angels, 
and authorities, and powers, being made 
subject unto him." 

Here are only three classes or orders named 
— " angels, authorities and powers." 

V. Angels are often employed with, and 
are interested in the affairs of this world. 

These facts have appeared, incidentally, in 
discussing the points already considered. It 
may be proper, however, to note tlic facts a 
little more distinctly. It has been seen 
that angels have been employed both as 
messengers of wrath and of mercy, as in the 
destruction of the Assyrian army, and in 
the deliverance of the apostles out of prison. 
The Scriptures give an account of various 
other acts peformed and messages delivered 
by angels, which need not be particularly 
mentioned. 

Paul asks this significant question, Heb. 
i. 14 : " Are they not all ministering spirits, 
sent forth for them who shall be heirs of sal- 
vation ?" 

This has the force of an affirmation, that 
they are all ministering spirits, sent forth to 
minister for those who shall be heirs of sal- 
vation. The manner in which a multitude 
of them sang when Christ was born, Luke 
ii. 14, shows that they felt a deep interest in 
the subject of the world's redemption. 

Christ says, Luke xv. 10, " Tliere is joy 
in the presence of the angels of God over 
one sinner that repenteth." 
1 Peter i. 12, in speaking of the death of 
Christ, and the glory that should follow, 
says, " which things the angels desire to look 
into." 

The doctrine that every person has a par- 
ticular guardian angel, may be true, but it 
does not appear to be revealed sufficiently 
clear to be classed among the doctrines to 
be embodied in a system of theology. 

YI. Angels are immortal spirits. 

Some have supposed that angels have 
bodies, but the discussion of this question 
is unnecessary, for if they have bodies, they 
are spiritual bodies, and can in no degree be 



228 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



analogous to our material bodies. We are 
DOW utterly incapable of comprehending 
our own future resurrection bodies, of which 
Paul says, 1 Cor. xv. 44 : " It is sown a 
natural body ; it is raised a spiritual body. 
There is a natural body, and there is a spir- 
itual body." 

What Paul here calls a spiritual body, 
may be no body at all, if tested by our pre- 
sent material organism. It may be neither 
ponderous, tangible, or visible to our pre- 
sent senses. It must then appear mere 
speculation to discuss the question, whether 
or not angels have bodies. We know they 
are immortal spirits, and that is all that is 
certainly revealed. The words of our Sa- 
viour in reply to the Sadducees in regard to 
the resurrection of the dead, settles this 
question. 

Luke XX. 35, 36 : " But they which shall 
be accounted worthy to obtain that world, 
and the resurrection from the dead, neither 
marry, nor are given in marriage : neither 
can they die any more : for they are equal 
unto the angels ; and are the children of 
God, being the children of the resurrec- 
tion." 

Here we have the fact distinctly brought 
to light, that angels cannot die, and if they 
have bodies, they are spiritual and immor- 
tal bodies. 

iThere is one other question, which is con- 
nected with the subject under consideration, 
and that is the fall of angels ; but this will 
be made the subject of the next section, to 
be discussed in connection with the existence 
of devils. 



SECTION II. 

The Existence and Evil Influence of Devils. 

The existence of evil spirits is most clearly 
taught in the Scriptures, and yet it has of- 
ten been denied. Those who seek to divest 
religion of all supernatural influence, find it 
necessary to dispose of this class of influ- 
ences also. When Christ has been divested 
of all divine attributes, and reduced to the 



level of a very good man ; when the mira- 
cles he wrought have been explained away ; 
when the direct influence of the Holy Spirit 
is denied, and regeneration is made to con- 
sist of a mere change of opinion, followed 
by a correction of some of the habits of 
life ; and when all future punishment is de- 
nied, and hell is converted into the grave, 
or is made to exist only in the human mind, 
composed of the elements of a guilty con- 
science, then there is little room left in the 
system, for the existence and influence of 
devils or evil spirits, and they are easily re- 
duced to the fleshy element in every man, 
to some bodily disease, or to some personal 
human adversary, as the exegesis of differ- 
ent texts may require. The question of the 
existence of devils, is so intimately connect- 
ed with various other parts of the Christian 
system, as to render it a matter of impor- 
tance, and it is proposed to devote a brief 
section to the subject. The main effort will 
be to prove the existence of devils, or evil 
spirits, which are tempters of men, and pro- 
moters of evil. Let it be remarked, before 
commencing the argument, that devils are 
believed to be fallen angels, that there are 
many of them, and that when the devil is 
mentioned, the leader of the apostate host is 
meant. 

I. The demoniac possessions described in 
the New Testament, and said to have been 
relieved by Christ and his Apostles, are 
urged in proof of the existence of devils. 
The account given of Christ's casting out 
devils, most clearly implies, upon its face, 
that the devils said to be cast out were real 
beings, evil spirits. ■ This is so obviously the 
sense of the language used, that it is only 
by a forced and unnatural construction, 
which violates all just rules of interpreta- 
tion, that it is made to bear any other 
sense. 

Among those, therefore, who deny the ex- 
istence of devils, there is no uniform method 
of interpretation ; in one text a devil is 
the personified principle of evil ; in another 
text the devil is the evil propensity of hu- 
man nature ; in another, the devil is some 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



229 



personal enemy or adversary, a human ene- 
my, a man of course ; and in yet another 
text, the devil is a disease, madness, or vio- 
lent insanity. That the inspired writers 
should have used language so vaguely, is 
not possible. But the absurdity of all these 
interpretations, will appear in the course of 
the investigation. 

1. There are cases recorded, where one 
person was possessed of many devils. Two 
cases are distinctly recorded. The case of 
the man that dwelt among the tombs is very 
decisive. 

Mark v. 2-16, and Luke viii. 27-38 : 
This man was possessed of many devils. 
Jesus asked the man his name, " and he said 
Legion, because many devils were entered 
into him." From this point the conversa- 
tion was carried on in the plural form, as 
with a company. " They besought him that 
he would not command them to go out into 
the deep." " They besought him that he 
would suffer them," &c. " Then the devils 
went out of the man." " The man, out of 
whom the devils were departed." Here, 
devils, they, and them, are so employed as 
to denote a company of devils. 

Also, it is said, " there was a great herd 
of swine," and '•' a herd of many swine." 
As two or more devils might enter into one 
of the swine, there may have been more 
devils than swine ; but as it does not ap- 
pear that one devil could enter into two of 
the swine at the same time, there could not 
have been less devils in number, than there 
were swine. 

In Mark xvi. 9, and Luke viii. 2, we are 
told that Christ cast seven devils out of 
Mary Magdalene. A legion of what were 
cast out of the man ? Seven of what were 
cast out of Mary ? No one can answer 
these questions, who denies the existence of 
devils, as personal evil spirits. 

2. The devils which Christ cast out, had 
a personal existence, separate and distinct 
from those men and women, out of whom 
they were cast. 

This point is clearly proved by the case 
cited above, of the man out of whom a le- 



gion was cast. It is said, " many devils 
were entered into him." They were some- 
thing that entered into the man from with- 
out, and must have existed before they en- 
tered into him. 

Again, it is said, " then went the devils 
out of the man, and entered into the swine." 
As they existed before they entered into the 
man, so they existed after they came out of 
him. They passed from the man to the 
swine, and must have maintained a distinct 
existence and identity, from both the man 
and the swine. They entered into the swine, 
and still existed, and in them passed away 
into the deep. The same is implied in their 
request " that he would not send them away 
out of the country." Mark v. 10. Noth- 
ing but personal beings, possessing distinct 
existence and identity, could be sent away 
out of the country. It was not the man 
that desired not to be sent out of the coun- 
try, but the devils. If it were the man, 
then as they i were sent into the swine, in- 
stead of being sent out of the country, it 
would follow that the man went into the 
swine, which is false upon its face, for when 
they were gone into the swine, the man 
was there cloathed, and in his right mind. 

Another very clear case is recorded, Mark 
ix. 17-27 : In this case the distinction is 
made very plain, between the man and the 
spirit, or devil, that was in him. When 
they brought the person to Jesus, it is said, 
" when he saw him, straightway the spirit 
tore him, and he fell on the ground." Note, 
it was the spirit that was in the person, that 
tore the person, not that the person tore 
himself, or that the spirit tore itself ; the 
spirit in the person, tore the person in which 
it was. Then Jesus "rebuked the foul 
spirit," not the person, " saying unto him 
thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, 
come out of him and enter no more into 
him." Christ here commanded the spirit to 
come out of the person, which proves that 
it was not the man, but something in him, 
yet no part of him, but a distinct, rational, 
personality. 

in, Jesus commanded the spirit to 



230 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book n. 



" enter no more into him," which proves 
that it was a living, rational, active being 
after it came out of him, capable, in itself 
of going back, but for this charge. Once 
more. Under this charge, the spirit cried 
and rent him [the person] sore, and came 
out of him." The spirit came out, which 
a distinct personality alone could do. 

Many other similar cases might be ad 
duced, but enough has been said to prove 
that the devils which were cast out by Christ, 
were distinct beings, distinct from those in 
whom they were, and out of whom they 
were cast. 

3, The devils of the New Testament, 
have the attributes and actions ascribed to 
them, which belong only to real personal 
beings. 

Matt. viii. 29 : " And, behold, they cried 
cut, saying. What have we to do with thee, 
Jesus, thou son of God ? art thou come 
hither to torment us before the time ?" 

Here is intelligence. The intelligence is 
superior in degree to any man, much more 
a lunatic. They knew more than the mul 
titude, for they had not yet learned that he 
was Jesus, the Son of God. They also 
looked into the future and saw there was a 
time of punishment coming, and demanded 
if he had come to torment them before that 
time. They also possessed the passion of 
fear, and showed that it was roused by the 
approaching footsteps of the Redeemer. 

Verse 31 : " So the devils besought him, 
saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go 
away into the herd of swine." 

Here is not only intelligence but desire, 
choice, and volition. It w^ill not do to say 
that it was the man that did this, and not 
the devils that were in him, for it would 
make man ask to go into the swine, and the 
request was granted, and the same that 
asked to be allowed to go into the 
swine, went into them, but it was not the 
man. 

Mark i. 23-27 : " And there was in their 
synagogue a man with an unclean spirit ; 
and he cried out, Saying, Let us alone ; 
what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus 



of Nazareth ? art thou come to destroy us ? 
I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of 
God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold 
thy peace, and come out of him. And when 
the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried 
with a loud voice, he came out of him. And 
they were all amazed, insomuch that they 
questioned among themselves, saying. What 
thing is this ? what new doctrine is this ? 
for with authority commandeth he even 
the unclean spirits, and they do obey him." 

Here is every mark of an intelligent be- 
ing, described as in the man, yet not the 
man, but distinct from him. The spirit cried 
out ; the spirit tore him and cried with a 
loud voice. It is allowed that the devil 
used the man's vocal organs to cry, yet it 
was the devil and not the man that cried. 
There was but one man, but the spirit said, 
let us alone, what have we to do with thee ? 
Jesus rebuked him, the spirit that talked, 
and said come out of him, the man, and he, 
the spirit came out of him, the man. The 
people understood it to be an intelligent be- 
ing, for they said, " with authority he com- 
mandeth even the unclean spirits and they 
obey him." But it is clear that the spirit 
developed a knowledge above that of the 
most wise of the multitude, by declaring 
that Christ was the holy one of God. The 
people had not yet learned that fact. 

Luke iv. 41 : " And devils also came 
out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou 
art Christ the Son of God. And he re- 
buking them, suffered them not to speak : 
for they knew that he was Christ." 

It is perfectly clear that it was not the 
persons that knew Christ, but the devils 
that were in them, and that came out of 
them. It is also clear that it was the dev- 
ils and not the persons that Christ rebuked 
and suffered not to speak, for it was that 
which came out of the persons which were 
rebuked, and to say it was the persons, is to 
make the Scriptures say that the persons 
came out of themselves. But Christ suf- 
fered them not to speak because they knew 
him. But the people did not yet know 
him, and to suppose that ail these demoniac 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTUEE STATE. 



231 



possessions were merely cases of insanity, 
is to say that the madmen of Judea, at om- 
Saviour's time, had more real religious 
knowledge than all the sane people of the 
laud, learned and unlearned together. 

4. It was clearly the opinion of the Jews 
that there were devils, and that it was real 
devils that Christ cast out. 

It is not only known that the Jews be- 
lieved in the existence of devils as a matter 
of history, but it is clear from the facts re- 
corded in the New Testament. They re- 
peatedly charged Christ with having a devil, 
which they would not have done if diabol- 
ism had not been a common doctrine among 
the people. See Matt. xi. 18 ; Luke, vii. 
33 ; and John vii. 20, and x. 20. In all 
these texts they charged Christ with having 
a devil. 

But what most positively settles this 
question, is the manner in which they ac- 
counted for the fact that he cast out devils. 
This we have recorded in four places, as fol- 
lows : — 

Matt. ix. 34 : " But the Pharisees said. 
He casteth out devils through the prince of 
the devils." Mat. xii. 24 : " But when the 
Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow 
doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub 
the prince of the devils." Mark iii. 22 : 
" And the scribes which came down from 
Jerusalem said, he hath Beelzebub, and by 
the prince of the devils casteth he out devils 
Luke xi. 15 : " But some of them said. He 
casteth out devils through Beelzebub the 
chief of the devils." 

Here is a clear admission that devils were 
cast out. There is also a clearly implied 
admission that the work done, the act of 
casting out these devils, required more than 
ordinary human power. Had it been only 
the work of the common powers of man 
they would have had no occasion to account 
for it, as it would have furnished no proof 
in favor of Jesus Christ. These facts being 
admitted, as they must be, they necessarily 
draw after them an admission that real dev- 
ils were cast out. Could the Jews have 
denied the existence of devils, that would 



have been a better reply, but they could not, 
for diabolism was a common belief. Could 
they have admitted the existence of devils, 
yet denied that he cast them out, that would 
have been their best defense, but that they 
could not do, for all the people knew that 
he cast them out. They were therefore 
driven to the necessity of accounting for it 
upon the ground of diabolism itself. " He 
casteth out devils through the prince of the 
devils." And again, " He casteth out devils 
through Beelzebub the chief of the devils." 
This is a clear admission that there are 
devils, and there is a chief or head devil 
over them. If it be denied that the Jews 
believed in the existence of devils, and in a 
prince or chief who is their leader, whom 
they called Beelzebub, there was no sense in 
their reply. Call the devils cast out any- 
thing else, than real evil spirits and the 
whole controversy between the Jews and 
Christ loses its point and its sense. 

5. Christ pursued a course which could 
but confirm the common belief in the exist- 
ence of devils, and leave the impression that 
they were real devils which he cast out. 
The manner in which Christ replied to the 
Jews when they accused him of casting out 
devils by Beelzebub the prince of the devils, 
is quite conclusive. The Saviour did what 
is called casting out devils, and so great 
and astonishing was the performance, that 
the people were rapidly believing on him in 
consequence. To destroy his influence, they 
charged that he did it by the chief of the 
devils. This explanation, as has been seen, 
took for granted that real devils were cast 
out, and our Lord's defense proceeded upon 
the same principle, that real devils were 
cast out. Christ did not intimate that they 
had mistaken the nature of the work he had 
performed, but only that it was not per- 
formed through the agency which they 
charged. The illustration of a kingdom 
divided against itself met the case if real 
devils were involved in the discussion, but 
if anything else was meant, it had neither 
point nor meaning. It was just the thing 
to confirm all who heard the discussion, in 



232 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



the common belief that they were real de- 
moniac possessions. But there are other 
cases where Christ pursued a course to con- 
firm this belief, or even to produce it, had 
it not existed, a few of which shall be no- 
ticed. Christ sent out his ministers to 
preach and work miracles, among which 
casting out devils is classed. In the follow- 
ing text we have the result stated. 

Luke X. 17, 18 : " And the seventy re- 
turned, saying, Lord, even the devils are 
subject unto us through thy name ; and he 
said unto them, I beheld satan as lightning 
fall from heaven." If they believed in dev- 
ils, this reply was calculated to confirm them 
in that belief ; and if they did not believe 
in devils, what would Christ have the disci- 
ples believe it was that he saw fall from 
heaven ? 

Luke iv. 35 : " And Jesus rebuked him 
saying, hold thy peace and come out of 
him." Here Christ, in casting out what is 
called a devil, speaks with authority, not to 
the man, but to the devil he was casting 
out of the man. " And Jesus rebuked him, 
[the devil] and said, come out of him," [the 
man.] Did they believe in the existence of 
real demoniac possessions, the solemn and 
direct address of our Lord, to their imagi- 
nary demons was certainly calculated to 
confirm them in their error, if it be an er- 
ror ; and if they did not believe in the ex- 
istence of devils, to whom would Jesus have 
had the by-stander suppose he was addres- 
sing himself, with such commanding autho- 
rity ? 

6. The integrity and inspiration of the 
writers of the New Testament cannot be 
maintained, if the existence of devils be de- 
nied. They have given descriptions and used 
such words in regard to demoniac posses- 
sions, as to involve either the real existence 
of devils, the ignorance of the writers, or 
their wilful prevarication. A few general 
descriptions may be first alluded to. 

Matt. iv. 24 : " And his fame went through- 
out all Syria : and they brought unto him 
all sick people that were taken with divers 
diseases and torments, and those which were 



possessed with devils, and those which were 
lunatic, and those that had the palsy ; and 
he healed them." 

Let it be remarked, that the Evangelist 
does not give the words of Christ in this 
text, but describes what Christ did, as he 
understood it, in his own words. He dis- 
tinguishes demoniac possessions from all 
.kinds of diseases, from all sick people. He 
distinguishes in particular, between being 
possessed of devils, and being lunatic. This 
proves, beyond a doubt, that lunatics are 
not meant where persons are said to be pos- 
sessed of devils. The language is directly 
calculated to confirm the common opinion 
that existed in regard to demoniac posses- 
sions ; indeed it would have given origin to 
such an opinion, had it not already existed ; 
yea, more, it is clearly based upon that 
opinion. No man would use such language, 
unless he believed in real devils, or mi^aut to 
countenance that belief in others. The con- 
clusion is, that Matthew believed in demoni- 
ac possessions, or meant falsely to produce 
that belief in others. If he did not believe 
in devils, he was false. If he did believe 
in devils, then is the doctrine of diabol- 
ism true, or he was ignorant and not in- 
spired. 

St. Mark must fall into the same dilemma. 

Mark i. 34 : " And he healed many that 
were sick of divers diseases, and cast out 
many devils ; and suffered not the devils to 
speak, because they knew him." 

Here again the writer does not repeat 
the words of Christ, but gives his own opin- 
ion, in his own words, of what Christ did. 
Nearly, or quite all, that was said on the 
text last quoted, is applicable to this, and 
need not be repeated. Mark, like Matthew, 
distinguishes between being sick and being 
possessed of devils. But he adds, that 
Christ suffered not the devils to speak, as 
though he really believed that the devils thus 
cast out were beings capable of speaking, 
and understanding the character and mis- 
sion of the Son of God. What cried out if 
there are no devils that are personal beings ? 
and who did St. Mark suppose cried out if 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTUEB STATE. 



233 



he did not believe in real demoniac posses- 
sions ? 

St. Luke has also fallen into the same 
error, if an error it be. 

Luke iv. 41 : " And devils also came out 
of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art 
Christ the Son of God. Aad he, rebuking 
them, suffered them not to speak : for they 
knew that he was Christ." 

Can any one believe that a man of com- 
mon sense, would give such a description of 
the cure of sick persons, or of the restora- 
tion of insane persons to their right minds ? 
Much less, can any one believe that such a 
description was given by the spirit of inspi- 
ration, without believing in the existence of 
demoniac possessions. But take one other 
case. 

Luke xi. 14 : " And he was casting out a 
devil, and it was dumb. And it came to 
pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb 
spake ; and the people wondered." 

One of two things is true in this case, 
there was a real devil in the person, and 
that devil rendered the person dumb,, and 
hence, was called a dumb devil ; or the per- 
son was simply dumb, and Christ simply 
cured some natural defect in the vocal or- 
gans. It is not possible that a man should 
give such a description of the simple cure 
of a dumb person, unless he was ignorant of 
the fact himself, and supposed there was a 
devil in the person, or wished to deceive and 
induce such a belief on the part of others. 
Note the language. " He was casting out 
a devil, and it [the devil] was damb. And 
it came to pass, when the devil was gone 
out, the dumb spake ;" that is, the person 
who was dumb, while the dumb devil was 
in him, spake when the devil v/as gone out 
of him. What went out ? Surely, nothing, 
if the person was simply dumb from defec- 
tive vocal organs, and if there was no devil or 
evil spirit concerned in it. In the light of 
the description here given of Christ's per- 
formance, the existence of real devils cannot 
be denied, without impeaching, either in- 
telligence or integrity of St. Luke. 

After these general descriptions, it is 



proper to look more critically at the names 
used by the sacred writers, to designate 
these devils. 

There are four words used in the New 
Testament to denote the evil spirits, com- 
monly called devils. 

Diaholos is the first to be named. This 
word signifies a slanderer, a traducer, a 
backbiter, an informer, a spy, and the devil ; 
that is, the chief of devils. It occurs thirty- 
eight times in the New Testament, and is 
clearly applied to human beings only four 
times. It is applied to Judas, John vi. 70 ; 
" One of you is a devil." 

1 Tim. iii. 11, it is rendered slanderers ; and 
2 Tim. iii. 3, and Titus ii. 3, it is rendered false 
accusers. In all the other thirty-four cases, 
it refers to the devil, beyond all doubt, if 
there is any such being, and if there is not, 
it cannot be known what or who it does 
mean. It cannot be possible that inspired 
writers have used one word thirty-eight 
times, and so used it only four times out 
of the whole, as to enable the reader to 
know what it means, which must be the 
case, if there is no devil. A few only of the 
texts need be referred to. 

This is the word used where Christ is said 
to have been tempted of the devil. Matt, 
iv. 1, 5, 8, 11 ; Luke iv, 2, 3, 5, 6, 13. 

It is the word used by our Lord in the 
parable. Matt. xiii. 39 : " The enemy that 
sowed them is the devil." 

It is the word used, Matt. xxv. 41 : " The 
devil and his angels." 

It is used in James, iv. 7 : " Resist the 
devil and he will flee from you." 

It is used, 1 Peter v. 8 : " Your adver- 
saiy, the devil, goeth about like a roaring 
lion." 

It is used, 1 John iii. 8 : "He that com- 
mittethsin is of the devil, for the devil sinneth 
from the beginning." 

It is used. Rev. xx. 10 : " The devil that 
deceived them was cast into the lake of fire." 

These cases are referred to as specimens 
of the use of the word. 

Daimonion is the next word to be noticed, 
which is translated devil.. This word is used 



234 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



sixty times in the New Testament, and is 
rendered devil in every case save one, and in 
that it is rendered gods. 

Acts xvii. 18 : " He seemeth to be a set- 
ter forth of strange gods." 

Here daimonion, in its plural form, is ren- 
dered gods. It is so rendered because it was 
used by the heathen Greeks, and they used 
the word to denote a divinity or any sjoirit 
good or bad. 

The word, as used by the Greeks, signi- 
fies a divinity, a spirit, a spectre or ghost, a 
demon, an evil spirit, the devil. In no one 
case, is it applied to man in the New Testa 
mcnt, and if it does not mean an evil spirit 
or spirits, in every one of the fifty-nine cases 
in which it is used and rendered devil, no one 
can tell what it does mean. A few of these 
cases will be noticed as mere specimens. 

This is the word used where devils are 
said to have been cast out. 

Matt. ix. 33 : " When the devil was cast 
out." 

Yerse 34 : " He casteth out devils through 
the prince of the devils." 

Chap. X. 8 : " Eaise the dead, cast out 
devils." 

Mark i. 34 : "■ Cast out many devils." 

Luke iv. 41 : " Devils also came out of 
many." 

John X. 20 : " Can a devil open the eyes 
of the blind." 

1 Cor. X. 20 : " They sacrifice to devils 
and not to God." 

James ii. 19 : " The devils also believe 
and tremble." 

Daimon, is the third word used to denote 
the devil, or evil spirits. From this word 
the last mentioned is said to be derived, and 
its signification is the same as it is used in 
the New Testament. It occurs only five 
times, and appears to be used in the place 
of the other word. The texts are, Matt. 
viii. 31 ; Mark v. 12 ; Luke viii. 29 ; Eev. 
xvi. 14 ; and xviii. 2. 

Among the Greeks this word signifies a 
god or godess, but was commonly used to 
signify an evil deity. 

Satan, or Satanas, is the fourth and final 



word used to denote the devil. This is a 
Hebrew word, and is found in Greek com- 
position, only in the New Testo,ment. In 
Hebrew it signifies an adversary, an enemy, 
an oppressor, a persecutor , and is used to 
denote the devil as the great enemy of man- 
kind. It is clearly used to denote the chief 
of evil spirits or devils, as it never occurs in 
the plural. We read of devils, but not of 
Satans. It occurs about thirty times in the 
New Testament, and is used in the same 
sense as the other words, save that it is used 
only where the head or chief of evil spirits 
is meant. 

A few texts will serve as examples to 
show the sense in which it is used. 

Matt. iv. 1-10. Here the being who is 
called the devil in the 1st, 5th, and 8th 
verses, Christ, in the 10th verse, calls 
Satan. 

In Matt. xii. 24, 26, where the Pharisees 
said, that Christ cast out devils by Beelze- 
bub the prince of the [daimonian] devils, he 
replied, " And if [Satanas] Satan cast out 
Satan, he is divided against himself." 

Here, what the Pharisees called the prince 
of the devils, Christ called Satan. 

Mark iv. 15 : " Satan cometh and taketh 
away the word that was sown in their 
hearts." 

Luke X. 18 : " I beheld Satan as lightning 
fall from heaven." 

In John xiii. 2, it is said that the devil 
put it into the heart of Judas to betray 
Christ, but in 27, it is said Satan entered 
into him. 

Acts V. 3 : " Why hath Satan filled thy 
heart to lie ?" 

Chap. xxvi. 18 : "To turn them from 
the power of Satan unto God." 

2 Cor. xi. 14 : " Satan himself is trans- 
formed into an angel of light." 

The above are sufficient to show how the 
word is used by the inspired writers. It 
must now appear, that if we deny the ex- 
istence of devils, no explanation can be giv- 
en of the description of demoniac posses- 
sions, and the manner in which the terms 
are used which denote evil spirits, that will 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTUEE STATE. 



235 



vindicate the writers of the New Testament. 
If they believed in such spirits, and yet if 
diabolism be not true, they were ignorant 
and could not have been inspired ; and if 
they did not believe in the existence of evil 
spirits, they could not have been justified in 
writing on the subject as they did. 

7. The devils which were cast out are 
called spirits. This of itself is sufficient to 
settle the question. Let the fact be first 
settled, and then the meaning of the word 
spirit be determined. 

Matt. viii. 16 : "When the even was 
come, they brought unto him many that 
were possessed with devils : and he cast out 
the spirits with his word, and healed all 
that were sick." 

Chap. X. 1 : " And when he had called 
unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them 
power against unclean spirits, to cast them 
out, and to heal all manner of sickness and 
all manner of disease." 

Mark i. 25, 26 : " And Jesus rebuked 
him, saying. Hold thy peace, and come out 
of him. And when the unclean spirit had 
torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he 
came out of him. 

Luke iv. 36 : " And they were all amaz- 
ed, and spake among themselves, saying, 
what a word is this ! for with authority 
and power he commandeth the unclean 
spirits, and they come out." 

In all the above texts, and in more which 
might be adduced, devils are called spirits. 

The reader's attention is now invited to 
two remarkable cases which have not yet 
been alluded to. As they are important, 
the brief history is quoted. 

Acts xvi. 16-18 : " And it came to pass 
as we went to prayer, a certain damsel 
possessed with a spirit of divination met us, 
which brought her masters much gain by 
soothsaying. The same followed Paul and 
us, and cried, saying. These men are the 
servants of the most high God, which show 
unto us the way of salvation. And this 
did she many days. But Paul being 
grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I 
command thee in the name of Jesus Christ, 



to come out of her. And he came out the 
same hour." 

Here what is called a spirit was ejected 
from a damsel, by Paul. Paul addressed 
the spirit, and said, " come out of her." 
Then the writer says, he [the spirit] came 
out of her, [the damsel] the same hour." 
The use of the pronouns he, and her, shows 
that two distinct personalities were there. 

The damsel is said to have had a spirit of 
divination ; that is a spirit by which she 
divined. The word in Greek is puthon, 
python, or Apollo, and signifies a diviner 
or soothsayer, one that tells fortunes. 

Acts xix. 11-17 : " And God wrought 
special miracles by the hands of Paul ; so 
that from his body were brought unto the 
sick, handkerchiefs or aprons, and the dis- 
eases departed from them, and the evil 
spirits went out of them. Then certain of 
the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon 
them to call over them which had evil 
spirits, the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, 
We adjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preach- 
eth. And there were seven sons of one 
Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which 
did so. And the evil spirit answered and 
said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know ; but 
who are ye ? And the man in whom the 
evil spirit was, leaped on them, and over- 
came them, and prevailed against them, 
so that they fled out of that house naked 
and wounded. And this was known to all 
the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Eph- 
esus ; and fear fell on them all, and the 
name of the Lord Jesus was magnified." 

This account could never have been 
written by a person, who disbelieved in the 
existence of evil spirits, unless he meant to 
deceive. But the main point now is that 
the devils, said to have been cast out, are 
called spirits. The evil spirits which went 
out of many through Paul's influence, 
doubtless were cases like those where Christ 
is said to have cast out devils, also called 
spirits. 

The case then being settled, that the 
devils cast out were called spirits, let an in- 
quiry be made into the meaning of the word. 



236 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



The Greek word rendered Spirit, is pneu- 
ma. It occurs about three hundred and 
eighty times in the New Testament, and is 
translated spirit in every case except three. 
In John iii. 8, it is rendered wind ; in 1 
Cor. xiv. 12, it is rendered spiritual ; and 
in Rev. xiii. 15, it is rendered life. In 
every other case it is rendered spirit. 

The word pneuma, signifies Avind, breath, 
air, life, soul ; a spiritual being, good or 
bad ; the Holy Ghost or Spirit. It is the 
only word used in the New Testament to 
denote the Spirit of God. The word has 
no signification in Greek, which it can be 
made to bear in the demoniac possessions 
described, which will give to the texts a 
clear sense, which will not include the com- 
mon idea of the existence of devils or evil 
spirits. The word can mean nothing else 
in the connections in which it is used. This 
last remark is true of all the words used to 
denote these evil spirits, devil, satan, and 
spirit. A few illustrations will show this, 
with which this branch of the argument 
will close. Please read a few of the texts 
where Christ is said to have cast out devils, 
making the necessary substitution for the 
word devil, and see what will be the sense. 
Begin with the man that dwelt among the 
tombs. Luke viii. 27-28. What word, 
then, will you substitute for devil, that will 
give the sense ? Will you call it the cor- 
rupt principle in man, depravity? That 
will do, only you must then admit that one 
man had a legion of corrupt principles, or 
depravities, and that they went out of the 
man into a herd of swine, and that hogs 
were, once at least, actually possessed of 
human depravity. 

Will you call it a personified principle ? 
Then you will have to allow that one man 
had a legion of personified principles of 
evil in him, and that they actually made 
him furious, and that Christ sent them out 
of the man into the swine, and that these 
personified principles of evil made the swine 
as furious as they had made the man. It 
may be a little difficult to see how a mere 
personified principle could be so powerful. 



Will you call it a disease, some kind of 
sickness, then you must admit that many 
sicknesses had " entered into him," and that 
those sicknesses desired not to be sent out 
of the country, but preferred going into the 
swine, and that they actually went into the 
swine, so that there was a transfer of sick- 
ness from the man to the hogs. 

Will you say that insanity is meant by 
the devil. This the sceptic is most likely 
to say, but then he must read the story 
after this manner : " There met him a man 
which had insanities, and he cried out and 
fell down before him, and with a loud voice 
said, what have I to do with thee, Jesus thou 
Son of God ? I beseech thee torment me 
not. For he had commanded the unclean 
insanity to come out of him. And Jesus 
asked him, what is thy name ? And he said 
Legion, for many insanities were entered 
into him. And the insanities besought him 
that he would not command them to go 
out into the deep. And there was there a 
herd of swine feeding on the mountain ; 
and they besought him that he would 
suffer them to enter into them, and he suff- 
ered them. Then went the insanities out 
of the man, and entered into the swine, and 
the herd ran violently down a steep place 
into the lake, and were choked." 

An appeal may be made to common sense, 
that the insanity, if there be any insanity 
in the case, must be with the writer, he who 
gave such an account of the cure of an in- 
sane person, or with the reader, who under- 
stands the history of the case to be an ac- 
count of the cure of an insane man. Ex- 
clude the idea of devils from it, and there 
is no sense in the narrative. 

Try one other text. Luke ix. 1 : " Then 
he called his twelve disciples together and 
gave them pov/cr and authority over all 
devils and to cure diseases." 

What will you please to substitute for all 
devils in this text ? Will you call it all 
kinds of evil propensities? That power 
they never had, or they would have con- 
verted the world. 

Will you call it, " all personified prin- 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



237 



ciples of evil ?" That will not make sense.' 
To talk of giving power over all mere per- 
sonifications of evil, is to talk without sense. 
Will you call it all diseases ? Tha.t will 
not answer, for diseases are mamed in the 
latter member of the text. Devils are 
clearly distinguished from diseases. 

If you call it all enemies, adversaries, op- 
posers, slanderers, false accusers, each and all 
of these will render the text false, for they 
never had power over all these ; but they 
had power to cast out devils in cases of 
demoniac possessions, and this is what is 
meant, and nothing else can be meant. 

II. The existence of devils or evil spirits, is 
proved by the Scriptural history of tempta- 
tion, and by their repeated cautions and 
warnings against being tempted. 

The temptation of our first parents is a 
case which has proved fearful in its conse- 
quences. It is true something called " the 
serpent," is said to have been the tempter, 
yet, if it were a serpent or an animal, it 
was doutless used by the devil to accom- 
plivsh his design. The repeated allusions to 
the transaction confirms this view. The 
literality of the temptation and fall was 
sustained, chap. v. sec. 2. That the devil 
was instrumental in that transaction is now 
the only point. That is clear from the 
fact that the devil is represented as the 
author of sin, and in that transaction it 
had its origin, so far as man is concerned. 

John viii. 44 : " Te are of your father 
the devil, and the lusts of your father ye 
will do. He was a murderer from the be- 
ginning, and abode not in the trath, be- 
cause there is no truth in him. When he 
speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his pwn : 
for he is a liar, and the father of it." 

Here the devil is represented as the first 
offender, and as the sin of Adam was the 
first human offence, he must have been the 
instigator of that, to justify language. But 
he is represented as the father of lies, and 
hence must have been the author of the 
first great lie that was told in this world 
That lie was the one which the serpent told 
to Eve. 



In perfect harmony with this, is the text 
which follows. 

1 John iii. 8 : " He that committeth sin, 
is of the devil : for the devil sinneth from 
the beginning. For this purpose the Son 
of God was manifested, that he might tb- 
stroy the works of the devil." 

Here rt is said that the devil sinneth frop 
the beginning. But the sin of Adam and 
Eve was the first sin of the class of which 
John is treating, and hence the devil must 
have sinned in their sin, to have sinned 
from the beginning. From that sin all sin 
has flowed as a direct or indirect conse- 
quence. Hence the Son of God was mani- 
fested, that he might destroy the works of 
the devil. The devil must have been con- 
cerned in the sin of Adam and Eve, or sin 
would not be his work. 

It was proved in chap. iv. sec. 2, that by 
the sin of Adam and Eve, death was intro- 
duced into our world. As the devil was the 
instigator and father of that crime, he is 
represented as having the power of death. 
Taking this view, how clearly does the fol- 
lowing text connect the devil with that 
transaction ? 

Heb. ii, 14, 15 : " Forasmuch then as the 
children are partakers of flesh and blood, 
he also himself likewise took part of the 
same ; that through death he might de- 
stroy him that had the power of death, that 
is, the devil ; And deliver them who through 
fear of death were all their life time subject 
to bondage." 

There can be no doubt that the devil ob- 
tained the power of death through the fall 
which brought death into the world ; and 
as he was the principal actor in it, he is 
destroyed or overthrown when it is coun- 
teracted by the death and resurrection of 
Christ. 

God said to the serpent. Gen. iii. 15 • 
•' And I will put enmity between thee and 
the woman, and between thy seed and hei 
seed : it shall bruise thy head, and thou 
shalt bruise his heel." 

That Christ is here meant by the seed of 
the woman, is clear. 



238 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



Paul says, Gal. iv. 4 : " God sent forth 
his Son. made of a woman," and hence he 
was the woman's seed. He was the seed 
of a woman in a sense in which no other 
.man ever was, as he had no human father 
If then Christ is meant by the seed of the 
woman, the devil must be the principal in 
the transaction, as it is his head that Christ 
bruises, and it was his works that Christ 
came to destroy. To this Paul very clearly 
alludes, Rom. xvi. 20 : " And the God of 
peace shall bruise Satan under your feet 
shortly." 

The temptation of the Saviour is another 
clearly marked case. We are told by 
Matthew, Mark and Luke, that Christ was 
tempted of the devil. There was no evil 
propensity in Christ to tempt him. In 
him there v/as no principle of evil to per- 
sonify by a beautiful figure. He was born 
holy. Luke i. 35. 

" He was holy, harmless, undefiled, sepa- 
rate from sinners." Heb. vii. 26. 

And though he " was in all points tempt- 
ed like as we are," yet it was " without 
sin." Heb. iv. 15. 

This temptation did not originate within 
him. Moreover, the tempter came to him 
and departed from him. Matt. iv. 3, 11. 

This being which tempted Christ, is 
called the tempter, the devil, and satan. 
Who was he, where did he come from, and 
where did he go to, if there is no devil ? 

It could have been none of the men of 
that community, for then it would have 
been told who he was, his name, the city or 
town in which lie lived, and the office he 
held would have been given ; in a word, he 
would have been called a man and not the 
devil. 

One text has been urged against this 
theory of the Saviour's temptation. It is 
James i. 14 : " Every man is tempted, 
when he is drawn away of his own lust, 
and enticed." 

This text speaks of such temptation as re- 
sults in sin. To be drawn away by our 
lust is a crime. Christ was not so tempted, 
he resisted the temptation and was not] 



drawn away, and though he was tempted 
" in all points," at every weak spot in hu- 
manity, it was " without sin," he not being 
drawn away. Moreover he had not the 
lusts by which other men are drawn away. 
His temptation was wholly from the devil, 
no part of it from within. The devil came 
and found nothing in him which he could 
excite to evil. 

Nor can the force of this argument be 
turned away by calling it a mystery. The 
temptation of Christ was necessary to per- 
fect him as our pattern, our leader, and 
captain of our salvation. It was neces- 
sary that he should meet, in his own per- 
son, and subdue every foe of humanity 
which is found between the cradle and the 
grave. 

The many warnings and cautions of the 
inspired writers against the temptation of 
the ■ devil, furnish clear proof of his exist- 
ence. 

Luke viii. 12 : " Those by the wayside are 
they that hear ; then cometh the devil, and 
taketh away the word out of their hearts, 
lest they should believe and be saved." 

What is meant by the devil in this text ? 
Not the world or lust, for they are compre- 
hended in other parts of the parable. 

Luke xxii. 31 : " And the Lord said, 
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired 
to have you, that he may sift you as wheat." 

No particular person can be meant by 
the devil in this text, and it undoubtedly 
refers to the fact that the devil was the 
principal power concerned in the terrible 
temptation which Peter soon met, and un- 
der which he so ingloriously fell. 

John xiii. 2 : " And supper being ended, 
(the devil having now put into the heart of 
Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him." 

Acts V. 3 : " But Peter said, Ananias, 
why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to 
the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of 
the price of the land ?" 

2 Cor. ii. 11 : " Lest Satan sl-ould get 
an advantage of us, for we are not ignorant 
of his devices." 

2 Cor. iv. 4 : "In whom the God of this 



CHAP. IX.] 



TTE FUTURE STATE.. 



239 



world hath blinded the minds of them which 
believe not, lest the light of the glorious 
Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, 
should shine unto them." 

2 Tim. ii. 26 : " And that they may re- 
cover themselves out of the. snare of the 
devil, who are taken captive by him at his 
will." 

1 Peter v. 8 : " Be sober, be vigilant ; 
becausfe your adversary, the devil, as a roar- 
ing lion, walketh about seeking whom he 
may devour." 

In all these texts it is implied that there 
is danger, that a common foe is in the field, 
and that the danger is from one and the 
same enemy in all these cases, which proves 
that whatever modern refinement may have 
done for humanity, the inspired writers be- 
lieved there was a common, invisible spirit- 
ual foe, whom they called the devil. 

III. A brief allusion to the origin and 
history of devils, or the devil and his angels, 
will close this argument. 

Devils are believed to be fallen angels. 
This appears to be the doctrine of the Bible. 
There is nothing more absurd or unphilo- 
sophic in the existence of fallen angels than 
there is in the existence of fallen men, who 
were created in the image of God. Wicked 
angels may be as consistent with God's 
government as wicked men. As the Scrip- 
tures were not given us to teach us the his- 
tory of the spirit world, but to teach us the 
origin, duty and destiny of humanity, allu- 
sions to the fall of angels are only few and 
incidentally made. Yet they are sufficient 
to settle the question. The following texts 
are believed to refer to the fall of angels. 

Job. iv. 18, 19 : " Behold, he put no trust 
in his servants and his angels he charged 
with folly, how much less in them that dwell 
in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the 
dust." Here is an allusion to the fall of 
angels too plain to be overlooked. The 
text says expressly, that " he charged his 
angels with folly ;" and what clearly proves 
that the inhabitants of the world of spirits 
is meant by angels is, the comparison which 
is instituted between these angels and men. 



whom the writer distmguishes by the ex 
pression, " them that dwell in houses of clay." 
The meaning appears to be this. If he put 
no trust in his servants, the angels, who are 
disembodied, but charged them with folly, 
how much less shall he put confidence in 
men, who are embodied or dwell in houses 
of clay. 

Fallen angels, of course, are the subject 
of this allusion, for we cannot suppose God 
ever charged the holy angels with folly. 

Luke x. 18 : " And he said unto them I 
beheld satan as lightning fall from heaven." 

If this does not teach the doctrine of 
Satan's fall, it must be hard to conceive in 
what language it could be taught. 

2 Peter ii 4 : " God spared not the angels 
that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and 
delivered them into chains of darkness to be 
reserved unto judgment." 

Jude 6 : " And the angels which kept 
not their first estate, but left their own hab- 
itation, he hath reserved in everlasting 
chains under darkness unto the judgment of 
the great day." 

Here are two direct references to the fall 
of angels, for the purpose of illustrating the 
dealings of God with men. The argument 
is that of induction, in which it is shown 
that certain false teachers cannot escape 
punishment, from the fact of the punishment 
which God inflicted upon transgressors in 
past time. To show this, that God has 
heretofore punished the rebellious, three 
cases are adduced, viz., the angels that sin- 
ned were cast down to hell ; the inhabitants 
of the old world were destroyed by a flood 
brought in upon the ungodly ; and the cities 
of Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned 
with an overthrow, turned into ashes, and 
made an example unto those who should 
after live ungodly. The fall of angels is not 
only referred to, but is classed with those 
awful events, the drowning of the old world 
by a flood, and the consuming of Sodom and 
Gomorrah by a storm of fire ; and it is 
worthy of remark that St. Peter notices 
these events in the order of time in which 
they occurred. Here, then, is an event, the 



240 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



sin and punishment of angels, awful from 
the Ycvj association in which inspiration 
has placed it, as well as from the description 
given of it. What event, then, is here de- 
scribed, and who are the beings here called 
angels? That some rational accountable 
beings are intended by " the angels that siyi- 
ned," no one can doubt, for none but ration- 
al accountable beings can sin and become 
subjects of punishment. Men cannot be 
meant, and the fall of angels is the subject 
of the text. It has sometimes been affirmed 
as an objection to the doctrine of fallen an- 
gels, that Peter and Jude borrowed their 
imagery from the heathen writers. If this 
■were admitted, it would not weaken the ar- 
gument, but if the heathen got their notions 
on the subject from early revelations, it 
would render the argument conclusive. The 
ancient Greeks appear to have received by 
tradition, an account of the punishment of 
the fallen angels, and of bad men after 
death ; and their poets did, in conformity 
with that account, make tartarus the place 
where the giants who rebelled against Juj)i- 
ter, and the souls of the wicked were con- 
fined. " Here," said Hesiod, " the rebellious 
Titans were bound in penal chains, 

" As far beneath the earth, as earth from 

heas^en. 
For such the distance thence to tartarus." 

And Homer, Iliad viii., line 13, introduces 
Jupiter threatening any of the gods who 
should presume to assist either the Greeks or 
the Trojans, that he should either come back 
wounded to heaven, or be sent to tartarus. 

" Or far, far from steep Olympus thrown, 
Low in the deep tartarean gulf shall groan. 
That gulf which iron gates and brazen 

ground 
Within the earth inexorable bound ; 
As deep beneath the infernal centre hurled 
As from that centre to the etherial world." 

If it were true that the apostles adopted 
the imagery used by the heathen poets, it was 
adopted because it was true to fact, and 
coming to us from them, it has the endorse- 



ment of inspiration, yet it is more probable 
that the heathen obtained their ideas of fal- 
len angels by tradition, from the early peo- 
ple of God. 

Before closing this section, it is proper to 
notice some of the principal objections 
which have been urged against the existence 
of devils. 

I. It has been objected that if the devils 
or fallen angels are chained, as represented 
in the texts that have been quoted, then 
they cannot be the tempters of men on this 
earth. 

Now, to reply to this, it is only necessary 
to enquire what is meant by the fallen an- 
gels being chained. It is presumed that no 
one supposes that the devil is chained lite- 
rally, with a material chain, as we hand-cuff 
a criminal, and chain him down to the floor 
of his prison ; such a notion, when applied 
to spirits, is too absurd to be indulged by 
the most superstitious and vulgar. What 
then is meant by the fallen angels being 
chained? Their chains may signify their 
hopeless despair, there being with them no 
hope or prospect of ever escaping from their 
wretched condition. Or their being chained 
may denote that they are so held in on all 
sides, by the divine power as not to be able 
to go beyond certain limits in their work of 
malevolence, temptation and ruin. Had 
not satan his chain in this respect, beyond 
the length of which he cannot go, we should, 
no doubt, see other marks of his goings than 
those that now appear. Now, what is 
there in all this contrary to the common be- 
lief in Satanic influence in this world. Should 
it be thought absurd to suppose that God 
can lay any restraint upon satan, and yet 
not confine him entirely, so as altogether to 
prevent his evil influence in this world, a 
sufficient answer will be found in the reply 
to the following objection. 

II. It has sometimes been objected that 
it is inconsistent with the divine power and 
goodness that such a satanic majesty, as the 
devil is supposed to be, should exist and be 
permitted to roam with such destroying in- 
fluence through the world and church of 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



241 



God. This argument is sometimes stated 
thus : God has power to destroy or control 
the devil, or he has not ; if he has not the 
power, he cannot be omnipotent, and the 
devil becomes a kind of omnipotent being, 
at least equal with God ; and if God has 
power to destroy or control the devil, and 
will not do it, he becomes accessory to his 
deeds, and can be but little better than the 
devil himself. That this argument is falla- 
cious is evident from the circumstance that 
it may be applied to disprove what is plain 
matter of fact. It proves just as much 
against the existence of wicked men, as it 
does against the existence of devils. It is 
said, Eccl. ix. 18 : " One sinner destroyeth 
much good." Now, God has power to de- 
stroy or control this sinner, so as to prevent 
his destroying much good, or he has not. If 
God cannot destroy or control the sinner he 
cannot be omnipotent, and the sinner be- 
comes a kind of omnipotent being, at least 
equal with God ; and if God can destroy or 
control the sinner, so as to prevent his de- 
stroying much good, and will not, he be- 
comes accessory to his deeds and can be but 
little better than the sinner himself. 

It is seen, then, that this argument proves 
just as much against the existence of wicked 
men as it does against the existence of 
devils ; and the existence and evil influence 
of wicked men it can never disprove, since 
these are plain matters of fact ; therefore it 
can never disprove the existence of devils. 
What God has power to do, and what he 
may see it proper to do, are two things quite 
distinct from each other. We know not but 
God may have the power to annihilate the 
devil by one look from off his throne ; but 
if it be so it cannot prove that it is consist- 
ent for him so to do. That God's peculiar 
people are sometimes tempted and led astray 
by wicked men, is a fact too plain to be de- 
nied, and it can detract no more from 
the power or goodness of God to suppose 
that a similar evil influence is exerted by the 
devil. 

III. It has been objected to the doctrine 

of Satanic influence, that if the devil tempts 

16 



men as generally, and in all parts ot the 
world as is believed, he must be capable of 
being in many places at. the same time, or 
he must be omnipresent, which can never be 
ceded to any created being. The fallacy of 
this objection consists in supposing that ab- 
solute ubiquity is essential to satanic influ- 
ence as generally as believed. On this sub- 
ject we beg leave to remark. 

1. That every created being has his own 
sphere of being, which he is capable of fill- 
ing ; more than which he cannot fill, beyond 
which he cannot go, and out of which he 
cannot act : as no being can act where he is 
not. Some beings, however, may fill a larger 
sphere than others. 

2. Spiritual or disembodied beings may, 
no doubt, convey themselves from one place 
to another with great facility, which unques- 
tionably is the case with the devil. We 
know not but he can pass around the globe 
quick as the motion of light. The move- 
ments of disembodied spirits, for aught we 
can know, are as easy as our thoughts which 
pass to the most distant orb in the smallest 
imaginable period of time. 

3. To the above let it be added, that there 
may be more devils than there are men in 
the world. The apostle informs us that an- 
gels sinned ; but how many sinned and fell 
we are not told. We also read of the devil 
and his angels ; while we are informed that 
seven devils were cast out of one individual, 
and a legion out of another. These circum- 
stances render it more than probable that 
devils are more numerous than human be- 
ings, and that where we read of the devil, 
reference is had to the chief, prince, or lead- 
er of the infernal host ; hence, to him so 
much wickedness is attributed, though he 
has myriads under his command in its ac- 
complishment. 

At this point the reader's attention is dis- 
missed from the subject of devils. 



242 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



SECTION III. 

The Immortcditij of the Human Soul. 

The doctrine of the immortality of the 
soul of man, is of vast importance. Have 
I a soul, which is no part of my body, and 
which will live, and think, and act, when 
my body shall be dead ? or have I no soul, 
and when I die, shall I cease to think ? are 
questions which are calculated to awaken 
the deepest solicitude, and lead to the most 
profound research, if there be any doubt on 
the subject. With men, who in the midst 
of life are in death, it is a question of vital 
importance, whether death sends them into 
a dark dreamless sleep, or wakes them up 
to real existence, in comparison with which 
this life is but a dream. The doctrine main- 
tained in the folloY>^ing arguments, is that 
the soul is a spirit, and that it does not die 
'nor go to sleep, when the body dies, but ex- 
ists, and thinks, and acts, in a separate 
estate. 

I. The Scriptures, in a most direct and 
clear manner, teach that the human soul 
is immortal, and does not die with the 
body. 

Eccl. iii. 21 : " Who knoweth the spirit 
of man that goeth upward, and the spirit 
' of the beast that goeth downward to the 
earth?" Dr. Clark, whose knowledge of 
■Hebrew will not be questioned, says the lit- 
eral translation of this text, is thus : " Who 
considereth the immortal spirit of the sons 
of Adam, which ascendeth. It is from 
above : and the spirit or breath of the cat- 
tle, which descendeth ? It is downwards 
unto the earth, tliat is, it tends to the earth 
only." 

The following is from Prof. Roy, author 
of Roy's Hebrew and English Dictionary, 
which Tie affirms to be a true and literal 
translation of the text : 

" Who knoweth the spirit of the sons of 
Adam, that ascends upwards to the highest 
place ; or even the spirit of the cattle, which 
descends downwards into the lowest part of 
the earth?" 



It will be seen that these translations 
essentially agree, and the text as it stands 
in our own common translation, or as here 
rendered, contains the following points : 

1. The spirit of a man and the spirit of 
a brute are distinguished the one from the 
other, and are particularly marked as tend- 
ing in different directions, so that the desti- 
ny of the one cannot be inferred from the 
destiny of the other. 

2. The expression, " the spirit of a man 
that goeth upward," clearly denotes, not 
only continued, but more elevated exis- 
tence, and hence it may be regarded as a 
proof that the spirit survives the death of 
the body. 

Eccl. xii. 7 : " Then shall the dust return 
to the earth as it was : and the spirit shall 
return unto God who gave it." 

We may test this text by a common sense 
rule, and learn its meaning, as we may most 
other texts. Suppose the text was not in 
the Bible ; and suppose further, that the 
community were divided in opinion, some 
believing that the soul dies with the body, 
and others that it lives in the spirit Avorld 
after the body is dead ; and suppose still 
further, that a person whose opinion was un- 
known, should address this divided commu- 
nity, and should say, " Friends, you must 
all die, and then shall the dust return to the 
earth as it was ; and the Spirit shall return 
unto God, who gave it," would any one doubt 
that he took sides with those who hold that 
tlie soul lives after the body is dead ? ISTo 
one can doubt it ; yea, the language would 
be offensive, under such circumstances, to 
those who deny that the soul lives after the 
body is dead ; they would feel that the dec- 
laration was made against their views. 
Then are we sure that the writer of the 
text, believed that the soul lives after the 
body is dead. The writer is clearly speak- 
ing of death, and when it shall take place 
he declares ; " then shall the dust return to 
the earth as it was, the spirit shall return 
unto God who gave it," which proves that 
the soul does not return to the earth with 
the body, as clearly as words can prove it. 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



243 



Psal. xc. 10 : '"'Tlie days of our years 
are three score jesrs and ten ; and, if by 
reason of strength, they be four-score years, 
yet is their strength labor and sorrow ; for 
it is soon cut off and we fly away." 

The argument hangs upon the last clause 
of this text : " We fly away." No man of 
sense and taste would use such language, 
with reference to death, who believes that 
there is in man no living soul, which contin- 
ues to live after the body is dead. Suppose 
the doctrine to prevail that when the body 
dies, the whole man dies, and that all there 
is of the man is laid in the grave, would 
any one, even by any rhetorical flourish, call 
dying, flying away ? Never ; the very fig- 
ure, if it be called a figure, is borrowed from 
the belief that man has a soul, which de- 
parts to the spirit world when the body 
dies ; this belief alone, could suggest the idea 
of saying that men fly away when they die. 

Matt. X. 28 : " And fear not them which 
kill the body, but are not able to kill the 
soul : but rather fear him which is able to 
destroy both soul aod body in hell. 

Luke xii. 4, 5 : " Be not afraid of them 
that kill the body, and after that have no 
more that they can do ; but I forewarn you 
whom ye shall fear ; fear him, which, after 
lie hath killed, hath power to cast into 
hell." 

These texts are sufficient to settle the 
question, if we put a plain common sense 
construction upon the language. The fol 
lowing points are perfectly clear : 

1. The body and soul are not the same. 
They are spoken of as distinct matters. 

2. Men are capable of killing the body, 
This refers to the persecutions which were 
to come, in which they should be put to 
death. Men did kill their bodies. 

3. Men are not able to kill the soul. This 
is most clearly asserted. The first text as- 
serts that they '• are not able to kill the 
soul," and the second asserts that, " them 
that kill the body have nothing more than 
they can do ;" which is the same as to assert 
that they cannot kill the soul. 

4. From the above, it follows that the 



soul does not die with the body. If the soul 
does not live without the body, or after the 
body is dead, then persecutors could kill 
the soul, the very thing which Christ affirm- 
ed they could not do. If the soul dies with 
the body, then to kill the body is to kill 
the soul ; but men can kill the body, but 
cannot kill the soul ; and, therefore, the soul 
does not die with the body. We are cer- 
tainly unable to see how this argument can 
be answered with any show of plausibility. 

Matt. xvii. 3 : " And behold, there ap- 
peared unto them Moses and Elias, talking 
with him." 

The force of the argument drawn from 
this text, depends upon the circumstance 
that those who had been long dead, appear- 
ed on this occasion. So far as Elias is con- 
cerned, it is admitted that there is little or 
no force in it, since he was translated, and 
did not die, but so far as Moses is concern 
ed, the argument is conclusive. The death 
of Moses is described in Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6 : 
" So Moses, the servant of the Lord, died 
there in the land of Moab, according to the 
word of the Lord. And he buried him in 
a valley in the land of Moab, over against 
Bethpeor : but no man knoweth of his sep- 
ulchre unto this day." 

Moses then died, and was buried, and yet 
he appeared upon the mount, and talked 
with Christ, nearly fifteen hundred years 
afterwards. To assume, as some have, that 
the soul of Moses died with his body, and 
that he was raised again, as all will be, at 
the resurrection, is without foundation. 
There is not the slighest proof to sustain 
the assumption. The fact, then, that one 
whose body is proved to have been dead 
and buried, afterwards appeared and con- 
versed, is clear proof that the soul lives 
after the body is dead. 

Matt. xxii. 31, 32 : " But as touching 
the resurrection of the dead, have ye not 
read that which was spoken unto you by 
God, sayiog, I am the God of Abraham, 
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Ja- 
cob ? God is not the God of the dead, but 
of the living." 



244 



THE FUTUEE STATE, 



[book II. 



See also Mark xii. 27, and Exodus iii. 6, 
from whence the quotation is made. It will 
be said that this text speaks only of the 
resurrection of the body and not of the 
conscious existence of the soul while the 
body is dead. This is not true, the expres- 
sion, " God is not the God of the dead, but 
of the living," clearly refers to the life of 
the soul after the death of the body, be- 
cause it is applied to those whose bodies 
were, at the time, dead. The argument may 
be stated thus : God is not the God of the 
dead, but of the living ; but God is the 
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and 
therefore they must be living. But the 
bodies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were 
dead, and therefore it must have been their 
souls that were living. This certainly is the 
most rational construction which can be put 
upon the language ; and that it is most in 
harmony with the grand design of our 
Lord, which was to refute the Sadducees 
and establish the doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion, will appear from the following consid- 
erations : 

1. The Sadducees were materialists, and 
denied the existence of spirits, as well as 
the resurrection of- the body. These two 
ideas were linked together in their views, to 
stand or fall together. To sweep their the- 
ory away, Christ included both branches 
but more particularly the existence of the 
soul after the death of the body, by which 
he removed their greatest objection to the 
resurrection of the body, and laid the foun- 
dation for it, by estabhshing the separate 
existence of the soul. 

2. It was necessary for Christ to estab- 
lish the separate existence of the soul,-ashe 
did, in order to prove the resurrection of the 
body, in a discussion with the Sadducees. 
There can be no resurrection, unless the 
soul maintains its conscious existence during 
the interim, and, as the Sadducees denied 
this, he had to prove it, to lay the founda- 
tion on which to build the resurrection of 
the body. The identity of man is to be 
looked for in the soul, and not in the matter 
that composes the body, and the only relia- 



ble evidence of identity, is our own con- 
sciousness ; hence, if consciousness cease at 
death, upon the principle that the mind dies 
with the body, and returns to dust with it, 
a link is broken in the chain of our exis- 
tence, and the man this side of death, can 
never be joined to the man beyond the res- 
urrection. The mind ceases to exist, upon 
the principle we oppose. When a person 
dies, if the mind is only the brain, or a func- 
tion of the brain, as an individual once said 
to the writer, then it dies and ceases to ex- 
ist. There is then no mind after the person 
is dead. The brains may be taken out and 
the watery part be evaporated, and the 
solid reduced to powder and preserved, or 
thrown to the winds, but no one would say 
that what had been evaporated and lost 
amid the world of waters is the mind. 
Nor will any one pretend that the powder 
preserved or thrown to the winds, is mind, 
or that it approaches to mind, any more 
than any other dast of the same amount, 
which may be taken from the earth any- 
where between the poles. There is then no 
mind after the person is dead, and the mind 
having ceased to exist, there can be no res- 
urrection of mind ; if mind exists again it 
must be a new mind, a new creation, and 
not a resurrection, and such a being must 
date his existence from such re-production, 
and can never be linked with some other 
mind that once existed, but which ceased to 
exist. The theory we oppose asserts that 
mind or intelligence is the result of organi- 
zation, and hence, when the organization 
ceases, the mind must cease to exist. Should 
the same particles of matter be organized 
into a thinking machine, a thousand years 
afterwards, it would not, it could not be 
the same mind, for identity does not lie in 
the particles of matter, but in the conscious 
mind ; and this new mind cannot, by mem- 
ory or consciousness, ally itself to the for- 
mer being wliich was, and which ceased to 
be, a thousand years before. 

Let us take another view of the same 
point. Some of the martyrs were burned 
to ashes, and the ashes were then gathered 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



245 



up and scattered upon the waters of the riv- 
ers or ocean, so as to prevent a resurrection, 
as the heathen persecutors supposed. Now, 
upon the supposition that the mind is a 
property of matter, the mere result of or- 
ganization, where is the mind of one of 
those martyrs now. It has no existence, 
and has had none since the hour when the 
body was burned. The fluid of the body 
that was burned exists somewhere in the 
universe of waters ; it may have a thousand 
times ascended in vapor, and fallen in dew 
and rain ; it may have floated in the clouds, 
it may have flowed from the fountain, run 
in the stream, and mingled in the ocean ; it 
may have formed the sap of trees and plants, 
and it may have been repeatedly drunk by 
men and beasts. So with the solid part of 
the body that was thus burned ; the ashes 
may have been washed away by ten thousand 
waters, and blown away by ten thousand 
winds ; it may have fattened the soil, been 
absorbed in growing plants, and entered 
into the composition of other animal bodies. 
In this state of things the particles of mat- 
ter are not the mind of the person that was 
burned. Nor are these floating particles 
of matter the body of the martyr that was 
burned. The human body is an organism, 
but these particles of matter are not an or- 
ganism, any more than the dew drop that 
trembles upon the spray, or the dust that 
cleaves to our feet. These particles of mat- 
ter are no more a man, than the dust of the 
ground out of which God formed the body 
of Adam, was a man, before God laid his 
plastic hand upon that dust. When the 
martyr was burned, the man ceased to be, 
according to the theory we oppose, and 
everything partaining to man, which dis- 
tinguishes him from the .common dust of 
earth and the common water of the ocean, 
ceased to be ; certainly so, unless his soul 
lives in the spirit world, as we suppose. 
These facts are so plain, that it is folly for 
any one. Christian or Infidel, to pretend to 
deny them. "We insist, then, that there can 
be no resurrection, if the mind does not live 
after the death of the body, to preserve a 



continuous being, whose consciousness shall 
extend back to the commencement of being. 
God can at the end of the world, produce 
as many beings as have been, and as have died, 
but they will not be the same beings. As 
there was no man, no mind, during the in- 
terim between the burning of the martyr 
and this re-production of being, conscious- 
ness cannot extend back beyond this repro- 
duction, or commencement of this new be- 
ing. To say that consciousness can extend 
through these thousands of years of non- 
existence, and identify itself with some one 
that once existed, but which ceased to exist, 
is to say that the mind can be conscious of 
time during which it does not itself exist, 
which is the same as to say that nothing 
can be conscious of something or that some- 
thing can be conscious of nothing. If the 
new organism be composed of the same par- 
ticles of matter, admitting this to be possi- 
ble with God, it will not relieve the difficulty, 
for conscious identity and responsibilty do 
not depend upon the presence of the same 
particles of matter, but upon the sameness 
of mind ; it is the mind that constitutes the 
man, and not the bones and fat, and the 
lean flesh, which are ever varying ; and the 
mind has ceased to be, as has been shown. 
The mind is not, and cannot be conscious 
of the presence of the same particles of 
matter at different periods, and hence the 
presence of the same particles of matter iu 
the new organism, cannot, through the con- 
sciousness of the mind, prove identity with 
some being that once existed, and ceased to 
exist five thousand years ago. Nothing, is, 
therefore, gained by supposing the presence of 
the same particles of matter in the resurrec- 
tion body. As identity or personal sameness 
does not depend on the presence of the same 
particles of matter, but upon the sameness of 
mind, there can be no resurrection which 
win link the post mortem being onto the ante 
mortem being, without preserving consci- 
ousness during the period that elapses be- 
tween death and the resurrection. This 
state of facts rendered it necessary for Christ 
to prove that the soul lives after the body 



246 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[BOOK II. 



is dead, in order to refute the Sadducees, 
which he did by showing that God was the 
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who 
were dead, and then affirming tliat he is 
Bot the God of the dead but of the living ; 
per-consequence, though the bodies of the 
patriarchs were dead, their souls were alive. 
This maintenance of conscious being du 
ring the intermediate state, linked A brahan 
beyond the resurrection, with Abraham 
dwelling in tents and tabernacles with Isaac 
and Jacob, heirs of the same promise, and 
laid the foundation for the resurrection, and 
refuted the Sadducecs beyond their power to 
reply. We have elaborated this subject at 
this point, because it is important to the 
general subject, and because it essentially 
belongs to a clear and full exposition of the 
text under consideration. We will now 
sum np our argument based upon the text, 
by stating the following points, which we 
claim to have made plain : 

1. The Sadducees not only denied the 
resurrection of the body, but the existence 
of spirits, insisting that death is the utter 
extinction of being. 

2. To refute this denial of the resurrec- 
tion of the body, and establish the fact of a 
future existence, which shall involve the re- 
sponsibilities of this life, the chain of con 
sciousness, which is the only sure proof of 
identity, must be maintained unbroken be- 
tween our present and future existence. 

3. To maintain this connecting link of 
conscious identity between our present and 
future existence, the soul or mind must main 
tain a conscious existence after the body is 
dead, and during the whole period of the 
intermediate state. 

4. To prove this vital point of unbroken 
consciousness, connecting our present with 
our future being, Christ quoted the words 
of Jehovah : " I am the God of Abraham, 
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Ja- 
cob," and then added on his own authority : 
" God is not the God of the dead but of 
the living ;" per-consequence, Abraham, Isa- 
ac and Jacob are living, though their bodies 
are dead, and the only, and irresistible con- 



clusion, is, that the soul or mind does not 
die with the body, but lives after the body 
is dead. 

Luke xvi. 22, 23 : " And it came to pass, 
that the beggar died, and was carried by 
angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich 
man also died, and was buried : And in 
hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, 
and seeth Abraham afar ofi" and Lazarus in 
his bosom." 

It is not necessary to discuss the question, 
whether this is a literal narrative, or a para- 
ble, as it fully answers the purpose of our 
argument in either case. If it be a literal 
narrative, it clearly proves that the soul 
lives after the body is dead. If it be a par- 
able, it must still be founded upon the fact 
that the human soul does live after the body 
is dead, otherwise it would be false and de- 
ceptive. When a parable has the form of 
a narrative, though the narrative may not 
have transpired, it must be what is likely 
to take place, otherwise it will have no 
force, or it will mislead. This representa- 
tion of the rich man and Lazarus, be it par- 
able or fact, clearly inculcates the doctrine 
that souls live after the body is dead. This 
it does in three particulars. 

1. It represents Lazarus as having a con- 
scious existence after he died ; he died, and 
his soul doubtless " was carried by angels 
into Abraham's bosom." 

2. " The rich man also died, and was bur 
ried : And in hell he lifted up his eyes, be- 
ing in torments." He then had a conscious 
existence after he w^as dead and buried. 

3. The text represents Abraham also, as 
alive in the spirit world, where good people 
go when they die. This makes a clear case 
that Christ taught the doctrine that death 
is not the extinction of conscious existence. 
It is worthy of remark, that the word ren- 
dered hell in this text, is not ge/ienna, which 
is used to denote the final place of punish- 
ment for the wicked, but hades, which de- 
notes the place of separate spirits, good or 
bad, during the intermediate state. 

Luke xxiii. 42, 43 : " And he said unto 
Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou com- 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



247 



est into thy kingdom ! And Jesus said unto 
him, verily I say unto thee, to-day shalt 
thou be with me in paradise." 

Yerse 46 : " Father into thy hands I 
commend my spirit : and having said this, 
he gave up the ghost." We consider these 
two texts together, because we believe they 
have a mutual bearing upon each other. 
This text is as clear a proof of the conscious 
existence of the soul, after the death of the 
body, as could well be furnished in the use 
of language. A few remarks will be suflfi- 
cieut on this plain subject. 

1. It cannot be pretended that Christ la- 
bored under any mistaken views, as to the 
prospective condition of himself, or that of 
his petitioner, nor of the state of the dead 
in general. 

2. They were at the time about to die, 
and both did die in a few moments after. 

3. At this moment of death, the peti- 
tioner asked to be remembered, and Je- 
sus answered, " to-day shalt thou be with 
me in paradise." This, under the circum- 
stances, was clearly a promise of being with 
Christ in paradise after death, and on that 
same day. This promise did not relate to 
their bodies, for they did not both go to the 
same burial place. And if the soul dies 
with the body, it could not relate to the 
soul. Paradise, in this text, can mean noth- 
ing more nor less than a place of happi- 
ness, and here it necessarily means happi- 
ness after death. What else can it mean in 
this connection ? In the Greek, it signifies 
a garden, or a place enclosed for pleasure, 
hence, in the Greek version of the Old Tes- 
tament, the Garden of Eden is rendered 
Paradise. But it can mean no literal gar- 
den here, for the thief was conveyed to no 
garden, nor can we suppose that his petition 
concerned the disposition to be made of his 
body after he was dead, and hence the pro- 
mise did not relate to the place of his 
burial, but to the state of his soul, which did 
not die. " To-day shalt thou be with me in 
paradise." Here was the promise of being 
with Christ, as well as being in paradise ; 
and having made the promise, Christ said, 



" Father, into thy hands I commend ray 
spirit, and gave up the ghost." Christ's 
soul, or ghost, which he commended into 
the hands of his Father and gave up, did 
not die with his body, and hence, it was 
with it that the thief had the promise of 
being in paradise. It must mean, therefore, 
a place, of happiness after death. That the 
New Testament writers use the word para- 
dise in the sense of heaven, is too plain to be 
disputed. The word occurs, we believe, 
only three times, including the text under 
consideration. The next place is 2. Cor. 
xii. 4 : " How that he was caught up into 
paradise." In the second verse, what is 
here called paradise, is called " the third 
heaven." This leaves no doubt that the 
word paradise is used in the sense of heaven. 
The other text in w^hich the word occurs, 
is Rev. ii. 7 : ''To him that overcometh, 
will I give to eat of the tree of life, which 
is in the midst of the paradise of God." 
Here again the word paradise is used in the 
sense of heaven. We have, then, a clear 
case before us ; Christ promised the dying 
thief that he should be with him in para- 
dise on that same day, but after death ; and 
as the word signifies a place of happiness, 
it is certain that both the mind of Christ 
and the pardoned thief lived after the body 
was dead. 

Acts vii. 59 : "And they stoned Stephen, 
calling upon God. and saying. Lord Jesus 
receive my spirit. There can be no question 
that Stephen was under the influence of in- 
spiration at the time he commended his 
spirit to Christ, for in the 56th verse he 
said, " I see the heavens opened, and the son 
of man standing on the right hand of God." 
Thus did the martyr, with heaven full in 
view, commend his spirit to Christ, saying, 
" Lord Jesus receive my spirit." A clearer 
proof could not be offered of the exis- 
tence of the spirit after the death of the 
body. Mr. Grew, in a pamphlet in which 
he labors to prove the death sleep of the 
soul by " spirit" in this text, understands 
life, and urges that Stephen committed his 
life to Christ, to be restored at the resur- 



248 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



rection, and tlien ailfirms that it does not 
prove " that the life is a distinct substance, 
susceptible of consciousness without the ma- 
terial or2:anization." Such reasonino;' can 



[book II. 

mind, as clearly as it is of the organism of 
the body — if the soul dies, involving a loss 
of mental and moral life, as clearly as the 
death of the body involves a loss of animal 



only prove the weakness of the cause it is i life, death docs separate from the love of 



designed to sustain. In the first place, it is 
a violation of common sense, to render the 
text life instead of spirit, in the common 
meaning of the word life as applied to the 
body ; for if there is no life in man, except 
what belongs to the material organization, 
and what can have no separate existence 
from the body, there was nothing to com 
mend to Christ, nothing for Christ to re- 
ceive. When the body died, life became 
extinct, it was not taken by Christ, nor was 
it preserved anywhere, it ceased to exist, 
upon Mr. Grew's theory, and hence his own 
theory renders the prayer of Stephen an 
absurdity. How conld the martyr say, 
" Lord Jesus receive my spirit," if he had 
no spirit, which did or could exist separate 
from the body ? The language implies, first, 
an act of reception on the part of Christ 
and secondly, something to be received and 
preserved ; but if the whole man perishes 
at death, no act could be required at death 
on the part of Christ, and there could be 
nothing to receive, either life or spirit. 

Eom. viii. 35, 38, 39 : " Who shall sepa. 
rate us from the love of Christ? Shall 
tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or 
famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword ? 
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor 
life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor poAv- 
ers, nor things present, nor things to come, 
nor height, nor depth, nor any other crea 
ture, shall be able to separate us from the 
love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our 
Lord." The simple point in this text is, 
that death cannot separate Christians from 
the love of God which is in Christ Jesus. 
This proves, beyond the reach of contradic- 
tion, that death is not the extinction of con- 
scious existence. Love towards God cannot 
be exercised, neither can the love of God be 
enjoyed, only by a rational being, possessing 



God, and Paul, who perpetrated the decla- 
ration, has himself already been separated 
from the love of God for almost two thou- 
sand years, and righteous Abel has been 
separated from the love of God nearly six 
thousand years. It will avail nothing, to 
pretend in reply, that the dust of the saint 
may be the subject of Divine love, in some 
sense which will reconcile the apostle's dec- 
laration with the death-sleep of the soul, 
for the following reasons : 

" The love of God in Christ Jesus our 
Lord, "of which the apostle speaks, is no doubt 
reciprocal, acting upon a rational soul, with 
affections capable of receiving and returning 
love. But the theory we oppose allows of 
nothing, after death capable of receiving, 
or enjoying, or returning love. 

2. There is nothing, worthy of the love 
of God in Christ Jesus, remaining of the 
brightest saint on earth, after death, if the 
soul dies with the body. It is important to 
understand what there is for God to love 
after death, according to the theory we op- 
pose. We insist there is nothing, but com- 
mon earth, water and air, which mingles 
with the other earth, water and air of this 
creation. The theory denies that man has 
a soul, which is distinct from, and which 
forms no part of his body ; and, of course, 
it assumes that mind is the result of or- 
ganization, and that intelligence is a pro- 
perty of matter, a function of the brain. 
This being the case when organization 
ceases, as it does in decomposition, the mind 
ceases to exist, is annihilated. If it be a 
function of the brain, it must cease to exist 
at death, for the brain has no function after 
death. As shown in remarks upon Matt. 
X. 28, man ceases to be man at death, the 
body ceases to be a human body, it is no 
more a human body than any other matter, 



reason, affections, and consciousness. If, and the mind has no existence. There is 
therefore, death be the extinction of the] nothing for God to love more than any dust 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



249 



of the street, or any water of the ocean. 
The love of God must pertain to mental 
and moral qualities, but the theory we op- 
pose allows of no mental or moral qualities 
after death, and of course there can be 
nothing after death, which can be the object 
of the love of God in Christ Jesus, and the 
conclusion is irresistible, that death does 
separate from the love of God. But the 
apostle affirms that death cannot sepa- 
rate us from the love of God, and therefore, 
death does not dissolve our intellectual and 
moral nature. 

It only remains to apply the words of the 
apostle, and show by what a variety of 
forms of expression he sets forth the main 
truth upon which our argument depends. 
He enumerates " tribulation, distress, perse- 
cution, famine, nakedness, peril and the 
sword." These are only so many forms of 
death. Famine kills and the sword kills, 
and yet these cannot separate from the love 
of God. He then declares his persuasion, 
that neither life nor death can separate us 
from the love of God. To this he adds, 
" angels, principalities and powers," by which 
he includes the inhabitants or agencies of 
both worlds, comprehending what is after 
death as well as what is before death. He 
then adds, " things present, and things to 
come," including all before death, and all 
after death. He then adds, " nor height nor 
depth," by which he includes all space, 
showing that there is no place above or be- 
low, in time or in eternity, which can sep- 
arate Christians from the love of God. And 
finally, lest some conceivable power, agency 
or being, should be thought not to be in- 
cluded, he says, " nor any other creature," 
which includes every possible being or agen- 
cy except God, since everything, but God, 
must be a creature. The argument, then, is 
conclusive, for as the Christian cannot, by 
any time, place, agency or power, be sepa- 
rated "from the love of God which is in 
Christ Jesus our Lord ;" and as to be the 
object of the love of God involves conscious 
existence, it follows that Christian men at 
least will not lose their conscious existence 



through death or any other means ; the 
mind, therefore, must live after the body is 
dead. 

2. Cor. V. 1, 6, 8 : " For we know, that 
if our earthly house of this tabernacle were 
dissolved, we have a building of God, a 
house not made with hands, eternal in the 
heavens. Therefore we are always confi- 
dent, knowing that while we are at home in 
the body, we are absent from the Lord ; we 
are confident, I say, willing rather to be ab- 
sent from the body and to be present with 
the Lord." The whole of the apostle's rea- 
soning from the first to the ninth verse, ap- 
pears designed to prove and illustrate the 
future conscious existence of the human soul, 
in a disembodied state ; but the three verses 
quoted, are sufficient to answer the purpose 
of the argument. In these verses the apos- 
tle sets forth the doctrine in question in sev- 
eral different forms. 

1. He asserts the grand fact, that after 
death we have a building, a house ; that is, 
a home in heaven. " Our earthly house of 
this tabernacle," means the body, for in the 
sixth verse, dwelling in it is called being 
" at home in the body." By this taberna- 
cle being "dissolved," we can understand 
nothing more nor less than death. The 
force of the apostle's language then, is this, 
when we die, when the body is dissolved in 
which the soul now lives, it will live without 
the body in heaven. Thus does the apostle 
most clearly teach, that the soul does not die 
with the body. 

2. The apostle asserts the same doctrine, 
by asserting that, to be " at home in the 
body," is to be " absent from the Lord." 
That the apostle enjoyed the presence of the 
Lord, in some sense, cannot be denied ; but 
it came so far short of what he expected 
when he left the body, that he called it ab- 
sence from the Lord. While the earthly 
tabernacle of the body stood, and he was at 
home in it, it shrined the soul and prevented 
it from entering into that visible and sensi- 
ble presence of the Lord, which it would en- 
joy when the tabernacle should dissolve, and 
leave the soul unincumbered amid the scenes 



250 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[BOOK II. 



of the spirit world. If the soul dies with 
the body, then to be at home in the body, 
would not be absence from the Lord, but 
the only possible means of enjoying any de- 
gree of the divine presence. 

3. The apostle more directly and fully 
asserts the conscious existence of the soul 



he could not tell. From this we learn two 
important facts. 

1. The body and mind are two distinct 
things. If there is no soul, no mind, no 
conscious existence, only what is a part of 
and inseparable from the body, Paul must 
have known that it was in the body, and 



after death, by asserting, that to be " absent I not out of the body, that he was caught up 



from the body," is to be " present with the 
Lord." This he asserts as a matter of 
choice, as a preferable state, to be absent 
from the body, and be present with the Lord. 
This language cannot be explained on any 
other principle than that the apostle be- 
lieved and taught that when Christians die, 
they enter more fully into the presence of 
God than while they live. If tlie doctrine 
of the death-sleep of the soul be true, if death 
be the extinction of conscious existence, 
there is no such thing as being absent from 
the body about which the apostle talks ; 
and considering the expression figuratively, 
as denoting death — and it can refer to noth- 
ing else — being absent from the body, is so 
far from being present with the Lord, that 
it cuts us off from all communion with God, 
and throws us beyond the jurisdiction of his 
moral goverment. Paul must have been a 
strange reasoner to have called this being 
with the Lord. 

2. Cor. xii. 2, 3, 4 : ''I knew a man in 
Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether 
in the body, I cannot tell ; or whether out 
of the body, I cannot tell : God knoweth ;) 
such an one caught up to the third heaven. 
And I knew such a man, (whether in the 
body, or out of the body, I cannot tell : God 
knoweth ;) how that he was caught up into 
paradise." 

A few remarks only, will be necessary on 
this text. We believe it is agreed, by com- 
mon consent, that Paul here speaks of him- 
self. Nor can there be any doul^t as to the 
reality of the vision ; the apostle expresses 
no doubt on this point, but speaks of it as 
certain. But there is a point upon which 
he has doubts, and that is, whether it was 
in the body, or out of the body, that he was 
caught up to paradise. Which was the fact, 



to the third heaven. 

2. We are sure that the soul or mind is 
capable of existing, of going to heaven, and 
of hearing unspeakable words without the 
body. No one can doubt that Paul under- 
stood the truth on the subject ; if the soul 
cannot subsist as a rational being, without 
the body, he must have known it : but he did 
not know that it could not, or he would have 
known that it was not out of the body that 
he went to paradise and heard what he did. 
If, then, Paul anywhere and at any time, 
taught that the soul cannot live without thq 
body, he taught what he did not know, for 
if he had known it, he would have known 
that he did not go to heaven without his 
body. Assuming that Paul did understand 
the truth concerning the soul, as he did not 
know that the soul cannot subsist without 
the body, he must have known that it could, 
for the one or the other must be true. If, 
then, he knew that the soul could sustain a 
conscious existence without the body, this is 
what he taught, so far as he taught anything 
on the subject, and this accounts for the 
many allusions to the subject in his writings. 
Those who deny that man has any mind or 
soul which can exist without the body, as- 
sume to know more than Paul did, for if 
they know the truth of their doctrine, they 
know that it was in the body, and not out of 
the body, that Paul was cauglit up to heaven, 
a thing which he declares he could not tell. 
What a pity some of our modern divines, 
with their new doctrines concerning the soul, 
had not been there to have instructed the 
apostle, and solved his doubt ! 

Eph. iii. 15 : "Of whom the whole family 
in heaven and earth is named." 

This clearly makes one family of those in 
heaven and those on earth, and if a part of 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



251 



the common family to wich we belong, have 
already got to heaven, or have become in- 
habitants of the spirit world, the question is 
settled, that death is not the extinction of 
conscious existence. 

Phil. i. 21, 23, 24: "For to me to live is 
Christ, and to die is gain. For I am in a 
strait betwixt two, having a desire to dejiart 
and be with Christ ; which is far better : 
nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more 
needful for you." 

In this text the apostle assumes, that im- 
mediately after death he should be with 
Christ. He represents himself as under the 
influence of two conflicting motives, drawing 
him in different directions, or producing dif- 
ferent desires. These are, first, a desire to 
depart at once and be with Christ, which he 
considered far better for himself, by which 
death would he rendered gain ; and second- 
ly, a desire to live longer in the world, for 
the sake of the benefit he might be to the 
clmrch, which was needful for them. Be- 
tween these two, he was in a strait, which 
supposes but one of the two things in the al- 
ternative can be obtained ; but if the apostle 
had believed that the soul dies with the 
body, there could have been no such altern- 
ative presented to his mind. His choice 
was between dying then and being with 
Christ, and living longer to serve the 
church ; but if the soul dies with the body, 
Paul is not with Christ yet, and hence there 
could have been no possibility of such a 
strait as he represents, for, in that . case, 
abiding in the flesh for the good of the 
church, could not have delayed the period 
when he should be with Christ, one hour. He 
could have lived and labored a hundred 
years longer, and then have been with 
Christ just as soon as though he had died 
that moment. There can be no doubt, then, 
that Paul really expected to be immediately 
with Christ when he died ; that in propor- 
tion as his labors were protracted before 
death, would the time be put off when he 
should be with Christ, and that as his period 
of labor was cut short by an earlier death, 
would the period be shortened which inter- 



vened between him and Christ ; and yet this 
could not have been the case, had he be- 
lieved that the soul died with the body. Mr. 
Grew says, upon this passage : " The apostle 
does not say, that he expected to be with 
Christ immediately on his departure." We 
reply, the apostle most certainly does say 
that very thing in effect. He says he has 
" a desire to depart and to be with Christ." 
He has a desire to depart, as a means to be 
with Christ, as an end. Now he could not 
have had a desire to depart for the sake of 
being with Christ, unless he " expected to 
be with Christ," in consequence of, or as a 
result of his departure. Such effort to turn 
aside texts from their natural force and 
meaning, only prove how hard the theory 
sought to be sustained is pressed by them. 

Rev. vi. 9 : " I saw under the altar, the 
souls of them that were slain for the word 
of G-od, and they cried with a loud voice." 

This text is sufficient of itself to prove the 
conscious existence of the soul after the 
death of the body. There is no way to 
evade the conclusion. The most likely way 
to be attempted, is, by saying that it was 
only a vision, and therefore does not de- 
scribe literal facts. We admit that it was 
a vision, and this only can make the fact a 
literal one. There is no way in which souls 
can be seen only by some spiritual vision. 
The writer says at the commencement : " I 
was in the spirit on the Lord's day." And 
again, he says : " I looked, and behold a 
door was opened in heaven." He then 
heard a voice saying : " come up hither and 
I will show you things which must be here- 
after." And adds immediately, " I was in 
the spirit." Here commenced the vision in 
which he saw the souls of the martyrs. Tf 
the vision did not give him a matter of fact 
view of the souls of such as had been slain, 
it was a false vision, and none of the repre- 
sentations can be relied upon. But the 
subject is perfectly free from the obscurity 
which hangs over most of this book. 

1. The subject is a plain one, it being 
well understood that many had been slain 
for the word of God. 



252 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



2. The vision upon its very face, professes 
to bring John within view of the scenes of 
the spirit world. He saw a door open in 
heaven, and was called up to receive repre- 
sentations of things yet to come. 

3. In this state he " saw the souls of those 
who had been slain for the word of God, and 
for the testimony of Jesus." After all this, 
shall we be told that the martyrs had no 
souls, which existed separate from their 
bodies, and after their bodies had been de- 
voured by wild beasts, or consumed in the 
fire ? We may be so told ; we have been ; 
but before we can believe it. we must have 
far less confidence in the teachings of the 
Scriptures than we have at present. No 
construction can be put upon the passage, 
which will invalidate its evidence in support 
of an intermediate state, in which the souls 
or spirits of those who have died, live with- 
out their bodies. The vision itsalf is based 
upon the fact that souls exist in a disem- 
bodied state. Admit the truth of this doc- 
trine, and you may even conceive of a vis- 
ion, for some wise purpose, in which such 
souls are exhibited as representatives or 
symbols, when no real souls are present ; 
but deny the existence of souls, and such a 
vision becomes false and deceptive. The 
vision was from God, and there can be no 
doubt that John saw something which he 
calls the souls of the martyrs. If there 
were no real souls there, what did he see ? 
What did God show him, which he calls 
souls, if there are no such things as souls ? 
Does some one say that it was a mere repre- 
sentation of souls ? But what could be a 
representation of souls, if there are no such 
things as souls? What form or figure 
would represent that which has no exist- 
ence ? There must have been a design in 
the vision, and as John most clearly saw 
something which he calls souls, if we deny 
the existence of souls, we must suppose that 
God introduced the mere appearance or im- 
age of nothing, and that this form of noth- 
ing was introduced to represent something. 
Such is the absurdity in which those must 
be involved, who deny the existence of souls 



j in a disembodied state. In every instance 
of symbolical representations found in the 
Scriptures, real existences are employed as 
symbols, as beasts are introduced to repre- 
sent kings and governments, and hence, to 
make a symbolical representation of what 
John saw, we must admit the existence of 
souls in a disembodied state. 

Here the direct Scriptural argument 
closes. 

II. The Scriptures teach the immortality 
of the human soul indirectly, by employing 
language which implies it, and by recog- 
nizing a distinction between the soul and 
the body. In the preceding argument those 
Scriptures have been considered, in which 
the soul is, in some form, the principal sub- 
ject of consideration. In the argument 
that follows, those texts are considered in 
which the soul is not usually the principal 
subject of consideration, but incidentally 
referred to, while treating of something 
else. In these texts it is taken for granted 
that the soul is not matter, but spirit, that 
it is not the body, but something distinct 
from the body, living in it, yet capable of 
living without it. 

The Bible usually assumes the doctrine 
of the distinction between soul and body, 
and speaks in a manner which takes it for 
granted that this distinction is understood 
and believed. Gen. xxxv. 18 : " And it 
came to pass, as her soul was in departing 
(for she died,) that she called his name 
Ben-oni." This text clearly takes it for 
granted, that man is composed of a body, 
and a soul, and that what is called death, 
or dying, is their separation, or the depart- 
ure of the soul. Dr. Clarke renders the 
Hebrew of this text, " in the going away 
of her soul." If man has no immaterial 
soul, if materialism be true, what went 
away, or what departed ? Her body did 
not depart. Her brains did not depart. 
There was nothing which departed, which 
could consistently be called " her soul," 
only upon the supposition that there is in 
man an immaterial spirit, which leaves the 
body at death. The language is just such 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTUEE STATE, 



253 



as a believer in tbe common doctrine of the 
soul would be likely to use, and just such, 
as none but such a believer would employ. 
Put the words into the mouth of one who 
holds the doctrine for which we contend, 
and they are clear and forcible ; but put 
them into the mouth of a materialist, and 
they either express a falsehood, or mean 
nothing. It is then pretty clear, that who- 
ever wrote the book of Genesis, was not a 
materialist. 

Numbers xvi. 22 : " And they fell upon 
their faces, and said, God, the God of 
the spirits of all flesh." 

This text clearly takes for granted, that 
man is a compound of flesh and spirit. 
" All flesh," clearly means all mankind, or 
all human flesh, and " the spirits of all 
flesh," clearly implies that to each body of 
flesh, there is a spirit. It must appear 
clear, that no rational person would ever 
employ such language, who did not believe 
in the common doctrine of the human soul. 
It is then clear that these praying Jews, 
together with their inspired historian, were 
not materialists. They believed that in 
man is united a body and a spirit. No 
other meaning can be given to the word 
spirits, in this text, which will even weaken 
the argument. The word sometimes signi- 
fies wind or breath, but give it either of 
these significations here, and you will de- 
stroy a clear sense, and turn their solemn 
prayer into mockery. How would it sound 
to pray, "■ God, the God of the winds of 
all flesh ;" or, " the God of the breaths of 
all flesh ?" It would spoil both the beauty 
and the sense, and turn that which is truly 
sublime, into that which would approach 
very nearly to the ridiculous. 

Num. xxvii. 15, 16 : " And Moses spake 
unto the Lord, saying. Let the Lord, the 
God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man 
over the congregation." What has been 
remarked upon the preceding text is equally 
true of this, and need not be repeated. 
Moses must have believed in the common 
doctrine of man's compound nature, con- 
sisting of flesh and spirit. 



Job xiv. 22 : " But his flesh upon him 
shall have pain, and his soul within him 
shall mourn." 

This text, like the former, does not assert 
the fact that man is composed of a body 
and soul, but like them^ clearly takes it for 
granted, that this is a doctrine believed and 
understood. It clearly distinguishes between 
the flesh and soul, and affirms that his soul 
shall mourn within him. Upon the suppo- 
sition of the materialist, what does Job 
mean by the soul ? It is not the flesh, for 
he names that as something different from 
the soul ; his flesh is on him, his soul is in 
him. Does he mean that his brains shall 
mourn within him? Does he mean that 
his wind or breath shall mourn within him ? 
Certainly none of these can be his meaning. 
Surely Job talked as though he believed 
the human mind to be something different 
from the body. 

Chap. xxxi. 30 : " Neither have I suff- 
ered my mouth to sin, by wishing a curse 
to his soul." 

Job is here speaking of his enemy, and 
by the expression, " his soul," he clearly 
distinguished between his soul and body. 
The body, the visible, tangible man, he 
represented as the person, and the soul as 
belonging to it. The language clearly im- 
plies a distinction between body and soul. 

Chap, xxxii. 8 : " But there is a spirit 
in man, and the inspiration of the Almigh- 
ty giveth them understanding." 

This text appears to be an allusion to 
God's breathing into man the breath of 
life, after he had formed him of the dust of 
the ground, by which he " became a living 
soul." The only use we make of it now, is 
to prove that the mind is spirit and not 
matter. " There is a spirit in man." Man 
here denotes the visible, tangible frame, the 
body ; in this there is a spirit. This spirit 
is doubtless the intelligent part, as it is 
said, " the inspiration of the Almighty giv- 
eth them understanding." The spirit is 
not only what God infused at first, but 
upon this same spirit God operates, when by 
inspiration, he giveth him understanding. 



254 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book IL 



Prov. xix. 2 : " That tlie soul be with- 
out knowledge is not good." 

This text clearly implies the existence of 
an intelligent soul, distinct from the body. 
What does the inspired writer mean by 
soul, in this text. The word soul is some- 
times used to denote man as a whole, or 
personal being, but the definite article " the," 
attached to it, will not allow it to have this 
meaning. No particular person is spoken 
of, and hence, soul cannot mean man as an 
entire personal being. We cannot say, 
" that the man be without knowledge is not 
good," when no particular man is intended. 
Soul cannot here mean wind or breath. 
There is no sense in saying, " That the 
wind or breath be without knowledge is 
not good." It will not better it to substi- 
tute brains, for soul. Nothing then can 
be meant by soul, unless it be the rational 
spirit in man, according to the common 
doctrine. 

Ezek. xviii. 4 : " Behold, all souls are 
mine ; as the soul of the father, so also t]ie 
soul of the son is mine." 

In this text it is certainly taken for 
granted that man has a soul, which forms 
no part of his body. What else can soul 
mean but the spirit that is in man, in con- 
tradistinction from his body ? It cannot 
mean the breath, or wind, in this text, as it 
sometimes does. God does not mean to say 
that the air which the father breathes, and 
which the son breathes, is alike his. It 
cannot mean the person or whole man. 
To mean that, it should read, " all souls are 
mine ; as the father is mine so also tlie son 
is mine." The expressions "soul of the 
father, and " soul of the son," proves that 
the whole man is not meant. The pre- 
position -' of," is equivalent to the pos- 
sessive case, and whether we say " soul 
of the father," or father's soul, the sense is 
the same. The language is then in per- 
fect accordance with the common belief that 
man is composed of a body and a soul, but 
deny this doctrine and the sense of the text 
is destroyed. 

Zech. xii. 1 : " The Lord, which stretch- 



eth forth the heavens, and layeth the foun- 
dation of the earth, and formeth the spirit 
of man within him." This text is clearly 
founded upon the belief, that man consists 
of a body with a spirit in it, nor can it be 
made to express good sense, without ad- 
mitting this doctrine, as a truth understood 
and believed at the time it was uttered. 
The spirit of man is the subject of remark, 
and this spirit, God is represented as form- 
ing within him. The mind, or immaterial 
soul, according to the common belief, is the 
only spirit that God ca,n be supposed to 
form within man. 

Kom. viii. 16 : "The spirit itself bear- 
eth witness with our spirit, that we are the 
children of God." Here are two spirits 
named. The first, called " the Spirit," is, no 
doubt, the Holy Ghost ; the second, called 
" our spirit," is the intelligent mind or soul 
of man. This proves the human mind to 
be an immaterial spirit, for the word spirit 
can mean nothing else in this text. What 
is it with which the Holy Spirit bears 
witness ? It is not our body, or any part 
of it ; it is not even our brains. It is not 
wind, or our breath. It is not our life. In- 
deed there is nothing which can be under- 
stood by " our spirit," in this text, but the 
immaterial, intelligent nature of man, accord- 
ing to the common belief of Christians. 

1. Cor. ii. 11 : " For what man knoweth 
the things of a man, save the spirit of man 
which is in him ? even so the things of 
God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of 
God." 

The design of this text is to afSrm that, 
as the spirit of man searches the things of 
a man, so the Spirit of God searches the 
things of God, and it proves as clearly that 
the intelligent principle in man is spirit, 
as it does that what is called the Spirit 
of God, is spirit, that is, an immaterial es- 
sence. 

Chap. vi. 20 : " For ye are bought with 
a price : therefore glorify God in your body, j 
and your spirit, which are God's." 

This text, as clearly a,s it possibly could, 
takes it for granted that man is composed 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



255 



of a body and a spirit, and that the body is 
not the spirit, and that the spirit is not the 
body, and that they both constitute the man. 
It is not possible to conceive that any well 
informed man, not believing in the common 
doctrine of body and soul, would employ 
such language. Paul, then, clearly believed 
the common doctrine. It was undoubtedly 
this belief, that suggested the mode of ex- 
pression adopted in the text. 

2 Cor. iv. 16 : " But though our outward 
man perish, yet the inward man is renewed 
day by day." 

In this text there is a clear distinction 
made between the body and soul. The body 
is called the outward man ; the soul is called 
the inward man. 

Chap. vii. 1 : " Let us cleanse ourselves 
from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit." 

Here again the distinction is made be- 
tween the material and spiritual part of man, 
and the Apostle takes it for granted that 
this distinction is understood. 

James ii. 26 : " For as the body without 
the spirit is dead, so faith without works is 
dead also." 

This text is sufficient of itself to settle 
the question, if there was not another to be 
quoted. The Apostle not only assumes, 
that man is composed of a body and a spirit, 
but supposes the fact to be plainer and bet- 
ter understood, than the connection between 
faith and works.' He is laboring to prove 
that faith is not vital and saving unless it 
produces good works, and to make it plainer 
he introduces as an illustration, the better 
understood fact of the union of a spirit and 
body in man, and that the body is dead 
without the spirit. The remark is founded 
upon the common belief that the body lives 
only while the soul remains in it, and that 
death is a separation betv\^een them. The 
above texts, gathered from the whole face 
of the Bible, as they have been, are suffi 
cient to establish the truth of the existence 
of the human mind, as an intelligent, imma- 
terial spirit, distinct from matter. 

The Scriptures furnish the same evidence 
of the spiritual nature of the human soul, 
that they do that God is a Spirit. 



The same words which are applied to 
man, to describe his spiritual nature, are 
applied to God. It is admitted that these 
words are indefinite in the original Hebrew 
and Greek, insomuch that no argument, can 
be based upon any supposed necessary 
meaning, but must depend for its force upon 
the connection and other circumstances ; 
and any criticism which will invalidate the 
evidence in proof that the human soul is 
spirit and not matter, will equally weaken 
the argument in support of the idea that 
God is a spirit. A few illustrations will 
make this plain. Let there be placed a few 
texts in juxtaposition, that the eye of the 
reader may rest upon both classes at the same 
moment : 



SPOKEN OF GOD. 

Isa. i. 14 : " Tour 
new moons and your 
appointed feasts, my 
SOUL hateth." 

In this text God re- 
presents his own soul 
as being the subject 
of hatred. 

If the word soul in 
this text means a spi- 
rit, it must mean a 
spirit in the opposite 
column, for as it is 
here the subject of 
hatred, it is there the 
subject of love. 

Isa. xlii. 1 : " Be- 
hold mine elect in 
whom my soul de- 
lighteth." 

In this text the 
same term is used to 
denote the mind of 
God, that is used to 
denote the mind of 
man in the opposite 
column, and both are 
represented as the 
subjects of a like af- 
fection. 



SPOKEN OF MAN. 

Deut. xi. 13 : "Love 
the Lord your God 
with all your soul." 

In this text God re- 
presents the soul of 
man as being the sub- 
ject of love. 

If the word soul in 
this text does not 
mean a spirit, it can- 
not mean a spirit in 
the opposite column, 
for as it here is the 
subject of love, it is 
there the subject of 
hatred. 

Isa. Iv. 2: "Let 
your SOUL delight it- 
self in fatness." 

In this text the 
same word is used to 
denote the mind of 
man, that denotes the 
mind of God in the 
opposite column, and 
both are represented 
as the subjects of a 
like affection. 



256 

Job. xxiii. 13 : — 
" What his soul de- 
sireth, even that he 
doeth." 

Jer. V. 9 : " Shall 
I not visit for these 
things ? saith the 
Lord : and shall not 
my SOUL be avenged 
on such a nation as 
this ?" 

Jer. vi. 8 : "Be 
thou instructed, 
Jerusalem, lest my 
SOUL depart from 
thee." 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



Prov. xxi. 10 : 
" The SOUL of the 
wicked desireth evil. 

Lev. xxvi. 15 : "If 
your SOUL abhor my 
judgments, so that ye 
will not do all my 
commandments, I al- 
so will do this unto 
you." 

Isa. Iv. 3 : " Come 
unto me, and hear, 
and your soul shall 
live." 



In the above texts, the word soul, in the 
left hand column, is applied to God, to de- 
note his Spirit, or the Holy Ghost ; and in 
the right hand column the same word is 
used to denote the mind, or intellectual and 
moral nature of man. If then, the one is 
not spirit, there is no proof that the other 
is. Any criticism upon the word, where it 
is applied to man in the right hand column, 
by which it may be rendered life, disposi- 
tion, temper of mind, breath, wind or air 
must be equally applicable to the word in 
the left liand column, where it is applied to 
God ; as cfiectually overturning the proof 
that God is a spirit, as that the soul of man 
is a spirit. 

We will now consider the word spirit, 
which is more clearly employed to denote 
the nature or essence of God, and will show 
that its use proves that man has a spiritual 
nature, as clearly as it does that God is a 
Spirit. 



APPLIED TO GOD. 

Gen. i. 2 : " The 
SPIRIT of God moved 
upon the face of the 
waters." 



Job.xxvi.l3:"By 

his SPIRIT he hath 
garnished the heav- 



APPLIED TO MAN. 

Prov. XX. 27:— 
"The SPIRIT of a man 
is the candle of the 
Lord, searching all 
the inward parts of 
the belly." 

Jobxxxii.8:"But 
there is a spirit in 
man, and the inspi- 



ens ; his hand hath 
formed the crooked 
serpent." 

Psal. cxxxix. 7-10: 
" Whither shall I go 
from thy spirit ? or 
whither shall I flee 
from thy presence? If 
I ascend up into hea- 
ven thou art there ; if 
I make my bed in 
hell, behold, thou art 
there. If I take the 
wings of the morning 
and dwell in the ut- 
termost parts of the 
sea, even there shall 
thy hand lead me, 
and thy right hand 
shall hold me." 

John iv. 24 : "God 

IS a SPIRIT." 

1 Cor. ii. 11: "Ev- 
en so the things of 
God knoweth no man 
but the SPIRIT of 
God." 



[book ii. 

ration of the Almigh- 
ty giveth tliem un- 
derstanding." 

Eccl. iii. 21, and 
xii. 7 : " AVho know- 
eth the SPIRIT of a 
man that goeth up- 
ward ? 



Then shall the dust 
return to the earth 
as it was ; and the 
SPIRIT shall return 
unto God, who gave 
it." 

Acts vii. 59: "Lord 
Jesus receive my 

SPIRIT." 

Heb. xii. 23: "The 
SPIRITS of just men 
made perfect." 

1 Cor. ii. 11: "For 
what man knowctli 
the things of a man, 
save the spirit of 
man, which is in 
him ?" 

There is quoted above, the principal texts 
which affirm that God is a Spirit, and di- 
rectly opposite to them, in the right hand 
column, are other texts, which just as clearly 
prove that the intellectual part of man is a 
spirit. Any criticism which will make the 
one class of texts harmonize with the mate- 
riality of the human mind or soul, will no 
less make the other class harmonize with the 
materiality of God. 

But the connection in which the sacred 
writers use the word spirit, applying it to 
God and to man in the same sentence, proves 
that by it they mean the same thing in the 
one case as in the other. We will give a 
few examples. 

John iv. 24 : " God is a Spirit ; and they 
that worship him must worship in spirit and 
in truth." 

Here the word spirit is applied to God 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



25*? 



and man, in a manner which proves beyond 
a doubt, that the word means the same thing 
in both instances. If any text in the Bible 
proves that God is a Spirit, this is the very 
text, and if this text proves that God is a 
Spirit and not matter, it must follow that 
man has a spiritual nature, which is not mat- 
ter. The text affirms that God is a Spirit, 
and then announces as a consequence, that 
is, because God is a Spirit, " they that wor- 
ship him must worship in spirit," using the 
same term spirit, to denote the spirit in 
which man must worship, that is used to 
express the divine essence which is to be 
worshipped. God is a Spirit, but man is 
matter and spirit, having a body and soul. 
The material body may be made to perform 
certain acts, and assume certain attitudes of 
worship, in which the mind, the spirit, is not 
engaged ; this is not acceptable. As God 
is a Spirit, no worship can be acceptable to 
him, which is not performed by the spirit, 
the soul as well as the body. Indeed, as 
God is a Spirit, we may regard the text as 
affirming that it requires a being of like na- 
ture to worship him ; that he can be wor- 
shipped by spirits only. If the mind of 
man is not spirit, but matter, how he can 
worship God in spirit, or with spirit, as the 
Greek participle signifies, is not possible for 
ordinary minds to comprehend. Adopt the 
common theory of the spiritual nature of 
the human soul, and the text becomes plain ; 
and the doctrine is that a spirit God can be 
worshipped only by spirit worshippers, and 
hence man, to worship acceptably, must 
worship with his spiritual nature — with his 
soul and not merely with his body. 

Eom. viii. 16 : " The Spirit itself beareth 
witness with our spirit, that we are the chil- 
dren of God." 

In this text there is no doubt that we are 
to understand, by " the Spirit," the Holy 
Ghost, and by " our spirit," the intellectual 
nature of man. The same word is used to 
denote spirit in both cases in the original, 
and must be intended to describe a similar 
essence. If " our spirit," means our body, 
our matter, or anything about us that is 
17 



material, then " the Spirit," may mean the 
material substance of divinity, and the criti- 
cism which will make the one conclusion 
plain, will remove all the difficulties out of 
the way of the other. 

III. The immateriality of the mind is 
proved by various mental phenomena. 

The soul or mind is not matter but spirit, 
and of course forms no part of the body. 
This raises an important issue with one class, 
who deny the immortality of the soul. There 
are some who deny the existence of a soul 
or spirit in man, to be contradistinguished 
from the body, and insist that what we call 
the mind is a mere function of the brain, and 
that the brain itself is intelligent. 

So far as the researches of philosophy 
extend, there are but two primary substan- 
ces in the uni^^rse, and these are matter and 
SPIRIT. All we know of these substances 
is certain properties and phenomena which 
they exhibit. Matter is known to possess 
the properties of Impenetrability, Exten- 
sion, Figure, Divisibility, Indestructability, 
Inertia, Attraction. Spirit is that which 
thinks, perceives, remembers, reasons, wills, 
and is susceptible of love, hatred, joy, and 
grief. The former of these properties are 
found in our bodies, in common with all 
other matter ; the latter constitute the phe- 
nomena of the mind. It is not reasonable 
to suppose that properties so opposite to 
each other, inhere in the same substance, 
and the only rational conclusion is that mat- 
ter is not mind, and that mind is not mat- 
ter. There must therefore be in man an in- 
telhgent spirit, which forms no part of the 
body, and this is what we call the soul. 
We reason upon the modern and generally 
admitted principles of natural philosophy, 
and unless we are greatly mistaken, the 
whole system of philosophy will have to 
be exploded, to invalidate our arguments. 

The admitted properties of matter, and 
the admitted properties of mind, cannot in- 
here in, and be essential properties of the 
same substance. A few illustrations will 
make this plain. 

1. The phenomenon of volition, self-deter- 



258 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



mination, and self-action, proves the imma- 
teriality of the mind. 

Inertia, which is an essential property of 
matter, cannot inhere in the same substance 
with will or volition, which is an essential 
property of mind. Inertia is that property 
in matter, which renders it incapable of self 
motion, or self-action ; matter acting only 
as it is acted upon ; will or volition, is that 
property of mind which renders it capable 
of self-determination and self-action. Now 
as matter can act only as it is acted upon, 
and as mind has the power of self-action, 
they cannot be the same substance, — matter 
cannot be mind, and mind cannot be mat- 
ter. 

Again, matter can be moved only by ex- 
trinsic force ; matter acts upon matter by 
contact, and one material bo5y has no pow- 
er to act on another material body, only as 
their surfaces come in contact ; but mind is 
acted upon by motives, and acts from mo- 
tives, and mind acts on mind through the 
medium of motives, without physical con- 
tact. This proves as clear as a sun-beam 
■that matter and mind are not the same. 

To insist in opposition to the above view, 
that mind is matter; that intelligence and 
volition are its inherent properties, and con- 
sequently that man has no soul, which /orms 
no part of his body, must subvert the ad- 
mitted principles of philosophy. Philoso- 
phy insists that inertia is an essential prop- 
erty of matter ; man's body is matter, as 
shown above, and yet it exhibits locomotive 
powers, and is seen acting without any visi- 
ble agent acting upon it, and hence the doc- 
trine of the inertia of matter must be given 
up, or we must admit that there is a ra- 
tional soul inhabiting the body, which con- 
trols it, moves it, and guides it. We see a 
steam engine in motion, and we knov*^ that 
the power of motion does not reside in any 
part of the machine ; that it acts only as it 
is acted upon. We know that the steam 
propels it, but we know at the same time, 
that the steam acts only as it is acted upon ; 
that there is an intelligent, reasonable agent 
that directs the whole. 



So with the body ; it is an animal ma^ 
chine, the bones are studs and braces to sup- 
port the frame, and are levers for the pur- 
pose of mechanical action ; the muscles, by 
their contractions and distentions, operate 
on the bones and set the machinery in mo- 
tion ; but the muscles have no intelligence, 
or volition, and when the machine is in order, 
they are under the control of and are guided 
by the mind. The foot or hand cannot will 
to move ; the eye cannot will to open or 
shut. This our own consciousness proves. 
Let any man try to will with his foot or 
hand, and his own consciousness, which is 
the highest proof possible, will tell him that 
there is no power to will in his foot or hand. 
Man can will, and may be conscious of wil- 
ling to move his foot, but at the same time 
he is conscious that his foot does not will, 
and that he does not will with his foot, but 
that he, his mind, wills concerning it. The 
muscles are put in motion by a power supe- 
rior to themselves, which must be intelli- 
gent. Now what is this power ? Those 
who deny that man has a soul, which is no 
part of the body, and which is an immate- 
rial spirit, say that the brain is this self-de- 
termining, controlling and guiding power. 
This we deny, on the ground, that it is mat- 
ter, and only matter, and possesses only the 
properties and powers of matter. If it be 
said that there is something in, or associa- 
ted with the brain which is not matter, 
which is superior to matter, the whole argu- 
ment is given up. for that is just what we 
contend for, and that superior something 
which is not matter, we call the soul. If it 
be said that the brain is only matter, then 
however refined it may be, it possesses only 
the properties of matter, one of which is 
inertia, directly the reverse of self-opera- 
tion. The brain then cannot act only as it 
is acted upon, and we come back to the 
question, what is this superior power that 
sets the muscles in motion, when we will to 
move the foot or the hand ? If it now be 
said that it is the brain, we ask what power 
acts upon the brain, causing it to act on the 
muscles ? The brain being matter, can act 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



259 



only as acted upon. We have then got to 
give up the first principles of Natural Phi- 
losophy, or seek for some higher cause of the 
phenomenon of motion. We allow that the 
muscles operate on the bones, that the brain 
operates on the muscles, through the nerves, 
all the nerves and spinal marrow termina- 
ting in the brain ; but we insist at the same 
time, that there is an intelligent soul which 
acts on the brain, or it would never act. 
This doctrine being admitted, the phenom- 
ena of matter and mind are made to har- 
monize without involving any philosophical 
contradiction, or absurdity ; deny it, and 
the principles of Natural Philosophy, which 
past ages have developed and matured, are 
thrown back into chaos, and we have got to 
begin, de novo, and grope our way in search 
of first principles. 

The above view accords with our own 
consciousness. Every man is conscious of 
willing, but we are not conscious of willing 
with any part of our body, not even the 
brain. That the head is the seat of the in- 
telligence, no rational man can doubt ; we 
are conscious that the thinking operation is 
carried on within the head, but no man is 
conscious that his brains think or will. 
The rational soul is mysteriously united to 
the body, and the brain is doubtless the point 
of union, and constitutes the medium through 
which the soul holds communion with the 
physical world without. The fact that this 
union is mysterious, constitutes no objection, 
for if we deny it, there Avill be as great a 
mystery involved in the idea that the whole 
mental phenomena is the result of proper- 
ties inherent in matter, and found only in 
the brain, in contradistinction from all other 
matter. 

2. The phenomenon of intelligence fur- 
nishes clear proof that the mind is not mat- 
ter, that it is immaterial. 

If matter be intelligent and can think, 
thought must be an essential property of 
matter, or, it must be the result of some pe- 
culiar modification of matter ; neither of 
which can be maintained. If thought be 
an essential property of matter, every part 



and particle of matter must think. If 
thought be essential to matter, what does 
not think, is not matter. 

Is thought, then, the result of some modi 
fication of matter ? Certainly not, lor 
thought is now admitted not to be an essen- 
tial property of matter, and no modification 
or refinement can add to any substance more 
than its essential qualities. Matter under 
every modification is no more than matter, 
and of course can possess only the proper- 
ties of matter. Matter is known by the 
phenomena it exhibits, and all modifications 
and refinements are but modifications and 
refinements of these phenomena, without in- 
creasing or diminishing their number, and 
as it is destitute of thought at the com- 
mencement, it must remain destitute of 
thought through every change and modifi- 
cation. If anything essential to matter be 
taken away, it must cease to be matter, and 
if something be added which is not essential, 
that something must have its own essential 
properties as a separate identity or sub- 
stance, and can form no part of matter ; 
and if that something which is supposed to 
be added, be thought, it is not matter that 
thinks, but something that is added to it 
This is just what we hold ; that in the com 
position of man, a rational soul is joined to 
matter, and that it is the soul that thinks, 
and not the matter. Whatever is essential 
to matter must be matter, and hence, to say 
that something not essential to matter, is 
added to it, so as to become a property of 
matter, is to say that something is matter 
which is not matter. This shows that 
thought, not being a property of matter, 
cannot become such, otherwise matter with- 
out thought would be less than matter, or 
matter with thought would be more than 
matter. 

The admission that matter is or can be 
intelligent, must draw after it consequences 
startling in their nature, if not fatal to our 
common religion. The intelligence of mat- 
ter has heretofore been contended for, only 
by Infidels ; and is in fact the doctrine of 
Atheism. To meet the argument in favor 



260 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



of the existence of God, drawn from the 
marks of intelligence everywhere impressed 
upon the visible creation, they have asserted 
that matter is intelligent. Those who deny 
the immateriality of the human soul, join 
the Infidel, and maintain that matter may 
possess a very superior degree of intelli- 
gence. If this be so, who can prove that 
there is anything but matter in the universe, 
and that what has been deemed the spiritual 
world is, after all, only a world of materi- 
ality ? There are the same proofs that the 
human soul is a spirit, that there are that 
God is a Spirit. Let us look at this point 
in the light of reason. Atheism admits the 
existence of matter, but denies the existence 
of spirit, while Christianity insists that 
" God is a Spirit," not matter, but above 
matter, who created matter, and gave to it 
its modifications. Now the point is, that 
every argument which is commonly resorted 
to, to prove the existence of God, will prove 
the immateriality of the human soul. To 
show this let us suppose a conversation be- 
tween an Atheist and a Christian, who holds 
to the materiality of the human soul. 

Christian. — " There must be a God, for as 
nothing can never produce something, the 
visible creation proves that there must be a 
Creator who made all these things." 

Atheist. — " It is as easy for me to con- 
ceive that nature, or what you call the visi- 
ble creation, is eternal, and that it contains 
within itself the cause of all the phenomena 
which it exhibits, as it is to suppose there is 
another being which is eternal, whom you 
call God, or a spirit, but whom I never saw 
and never expect to see." 

Christian. — " It is not possible for us to 
comprehend eternal existence, yet reason 
tells us that something must be eternal, and 
that it is not the visible universe that is 
eternal, as you suppose ; but God who is a 
Spirit, is proved to be the Creator by the 
signs of intelligence and marks of design 
everywhere to be seen upon the very face of 
creation." 

Atheist. — " Matter itself is intelligent un- 
der some of its modifications, as you admits 



and hence, all the phenomena of the universe 
may be accounted for without supposing 
anything superior to matter. If matter 
may possess one degree of intelligence, it 
may possess a still greater degree, even per- 
fection of knowledge, which you attribute to 
your supposed God. The human mind pre- 
sents the highest degree of intelligence of 
which we have any personal knowledge ; it 
presents the phenomena of thought, feeling, 
reason, volition, self-determination, self-ac- 
tion, moral sentiments, love and hatred. 
These, in kind, are all that you pretend to 
claim for your supposed God ; you only in- 
sist that he possesses them in a higher de- 
gree, and as you contend that all these are 
possessed by matter, the human mind being 
only matter, the marks of intelligence which 
the visible universe exhibits are no proof of 
an intelligent Spirit, prior and superior to 
matter, whom you call God. Take an illus- 
tration : suppose you refer me to the solar 
system with the sun for its centre, and all 
the planets revolving around it with the 
regularity of a well adjusted clock, with 
comets to note the centuries and other peri- 
ods, and tell me there must be a Creator who 
made this machine of the universe, who can- 
not be matter, but who must be spirit. In 
reply, I exhibit to you a time-piece, and tell 
you that it is a model of the solar system ; 
it has various and complicated wheels, all 
moving with perfect order, with the moving 
power so encased as to be hid from your 
view ; one pointer tells the lapse ot every 
second ; another points out the flight of min 
utes as they depart one by one ; a third, 
notes the lapse of hours, and still another, 
counts the days as they pass one after 
another, so that by looking upon its face, 
you can read the second of the minute, the 
minute of the hour, the hour of the day, and 
the day of the month. This curious ma- 
chine which gives the most clear proof of 
intelligence and design, is not only matter 
itself, but the designer and artificer were 
matter and nothing but matter, as you in- 
sist that the human mind is not spirit but 
matter. If, then, matter compressed into so 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



261 



small a compass as the human brain, can 
design and execute after such a manner, it 
only requires an organization of this matter, 
on a larger scale, which may exist some- 
where as the great soul of the universe, to 
account for all the phenomena which you 
consider proof of the existence of a Spirit- 
God." 

It is seen from the above, that when we, as 
Christians, deny that man has a soul wh ich 
is not matter, but which is an immaterial 
spirit, we break down the great dividing 
line between Christianity and scepticism. 
How a man can prove the existence of God 
from the works of creation, when he attri- 
butes to matt-er, wrapt up in the small com- 
pass of the human brain, every essential at- 
tribute in kind, which he attributes to his 
God, we need more light to understand. It 
appears to us that we must admit the imma- 
teriality of the human mind, or be driven 
by Infidelity to adopt its theory of a material 
universe, with a material God, mysteriously 
folded up in its bosom, or equally mysteri- 
ously diffused among its living orbs. He 
who contends for the materiality of the hu- 
man soul, may say that he relies upon none 
of these proofs to support his belief in 
the existence of God, but relies wholly up- 
on the Scriptures. Well, this issue has 
been met, and it has been proved that the 
Scriptures as clearly teach that the hu- 
man soul is a spirit, as they do that God 
is a pirit. 

3. The phenomenon of memory proves 
the materiality of the mind. 

That which remembers must be spirit and 
not matter. It is not possible for us to con- 
ceive how memory can be a property of, or 
be exercised by matter. Memory lies at 
the foundation of all improvement — without 
it we could make no progress If the ideas 
we derive through the medium of the senses, 
were to pass away with the objects that 
produce the sensation, the whole of life 
would be a mere succession of ideas, or 
mental states, without any accumulation of 
knowledge ; to prevent which, we are en- 
dowed with the power of remembering — so 



that instead of leaving the past a blank, the 
mind can trace its own history, and view 
from any point of its journey, all the princi- 
pal events that have transpired, the objects 
that it has viewed, the feelings it has expe- 
rienced, and the thoughts it has entertained, 
from the twilight dawn of childhood to the 
present moment. Take, for example, such 
-minds as Bacon, Locke and Newton, and 
how powerful must be memory, to treasure 
a knowledge of almost universal nature — 
surveying the highway of worlds, and gath- 
ering, retaining, and unfolding to the mental 
vision of others, the numberless laws by 
which their phenomena are produced, and 
their motions directed ? How vast must be 
the number of ideas which such minds are 
capable of retaining ? It is not possible to 
see how matter, in the shape and compass 
of the human brain, can gather, receive, and 
retain all these ideas, the originals of which, 
fill earth and heaven-wide space. Assume 
that the human mind is material, and there 
is no known principle of philosophy upon 
which the phenomena of memory can be ex- 
plained. 

Ideas are immaterial, knowledge is imma- 
terial, thoughts are immaterial, and how 
they can impress themselves upon matter, so 
as to be retained for fifty years, and be now 
and then called up and exhibited as occa- 
sion requires, cannot be explained by the 
known laws and properties of matter. Let 
us suppose a case : — A person hears his 
friend narrate the scenes and incidents of 
his travels in a foreign land — he describes 
the general face of the country, its produc- 
tions, the size, complexion and habits of the 
people, together with all the principal moun- 
tains, lakes and rivers. The listener forms 
ideas in his mind of all these things, so that 
he is able to take a mental view of the whole 
country, and can even describe it to others. 
Now what is in his mind ? Not the coun- 
try, not its people, mountains, lakes and 
rivers, they are not in the mind. Nor can 
there be even the figure or picture of the 
variegated scenery impressed upon the mind, 
if it be matter. There has been no contact 



262 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book n. 



to impress the brain with the outline of the 
country. He never saw it — he never saw a 
map or picture of it. He has only heard 
certain words, and there is no natural adap- 
tation in those words to impress the mind 
with tlie various forms, colors and motions, 
which a view of the country presents. As 
matter can be impressed only by matter, to 
produce this result, the words must not only 
be material, but must have figure and color, 
and must be harder than the mind, as the 
softer always receives the impression of the 
harder, when material bodies come in con- 
tact. One word must have the form of a 
man, and another the form of a mountain, 
and another the form of a landscape, and 
another of a lake, and another of a rivor, 
for matter can only receive the form of the 
object by which it is impressed. But there 
is another difficulty ; motion has no form 
which can be impressed, engraved, or paint- 
ed upon matter. Motion cannot be repre- 
sented by any image ; it cannot be repre- 
sented upon matter, but by the actual mo- 
tion of the matter. But in the outline of 
the country impressed upon the mind, as 
•supposed above, there must be a conception 
of a flowing river, which could never be im- 
pressed upon the mind, if it were a material 
substance, unless the words themselves have 
the motion of the river, or give to the mind 
such motion, neither of which can be true 
upon the supposition that mind is matter. 
'The mind does receive ideas from various 
sources and through various mediums, and 
Tetain them through the whole period of 
life : and though they are not always in the 
mind, or, at least, are uot always recog 
nized by the mind as a present mental state, 
•yet the mind can recall them at pleasure, 
The fact that a man having learned any art, 
or acquired any information, can afterwards 
occupy his mind with other matters, not 
even thinking of the same for years, and 
then recall the whole on a moment's notice, 
when occasion shall require, proves, beyond 
a doubt, that ideas do, in some way, impress 
themselves upon the mind, or, in some sense, 
remain in the mind ; otherwise an idea, or 



an art learned, having once occupied the 
mind, then ceasing to occupy it as a sub- 
ject of present thought, or a present mental 
state, could not be recalled with any more 
facility, than a new thought could be con- 
ceived, or a new art learned, which every 
rational mind knows is not true. To assert 
it would be to assert that there is no such 
thing as memory. Thus the phenomena of 
memory proves, that the mind cannot be a 
material substance. 

Should we go back to the old theory of 
memory, found in the exploded philosophy 
of a departed age, we should not be able to 
reconcile memory with the idea of the ma- 
teriality of the mind. The theory to which 
we allude is, that ideas are images of things 
which are presented to the mind in percep- 
tion, and that these images are recalled in 
the act of memory. This would render it 
necessary to have some place to store them 
between the primary act of perception, and 
the subsequent act of memory. This must 
convert the mind, yea, the brain, if the 
brain be the mind, into a vast lumber- 
room, where are stored images of more 
things than Noah had creatures in the ark. 
These must be packed away in boxes, laid 
away upon shelves, or hung up as maps 
upon a wall ; and from among the millions, 
one after another must come forward from 
its concealment, and then retire into its hiding 
place, as one thing after another is recalled 
by memory. It appears to us, that this 
philosophy must be adopted by those who 
hold that the mind is matter, that the brain 
is the mind ; for it is not possible to conceive 
how forms of material things, and ideas of 
things in general, can be impressed upon 
the brain, or any material substance, though 
it be called mind, so as to be retained and 
viewed at pleasure. -But if this philosophy 
be once adopted by the materialist, another 
difficulty will arise, which must utterly con- 
found his whole theory. It is this : Images 
sketched in any manner upon a material 
substance, must occupy space ; and, as we 
cannot conceive that the brain is divided 
into as many apartments as there are ideas, 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



263 



each occupying a distinct place by itself, 
they must be piled one upon the other, 
thousands upon thousands, on precisely the 
same portion of matter, if the mind be mat- 
ter. This is absolutely impossible, accord- 
ing to all the known laws of matter ; matter 
must fill its own space, can fill no more than 
its space, and nothing else can occupy the 
same space at the same time, which any 
given portion of matter does fill. If, then, 
the mind be matter, you can only cover its 
surface with the impressions or images of 
ideas ; and, of course, the number of ideas 
which the mind is capable of receiving and 
retaining, must be limited according to the 
proportion of space which each occupies, 
compared with the dimensions of the whole 
mind. This, every reflecting mind knows 
cannot be true ; for no person ever knew so 
much that he could learn no more — no per- 
son ever found his mind so full, or so entirely 
occupied, with ideas, that there was no room 
for more. Keeping in view the fact, that 
every portion of matter presents a surface 
of limited and definite extent, we remark 
that, no more ideas can be impressed upon 
the mind, if it be matter, than will cover 
its surface ; for a number of impressions, or 
images, cannot occupy the same space upon 
the surface of any material body, without 
defacing each other. If the mind be mat- 
ter, then each idea must occupy a definite 
portion of its surface, which must sustain a 
proportion to the whole mind, or else each idea 
must occupy the whole miLd. If each idea 
occupies a part of the mind, which sustains 
a proportion to the whole, then it follows, 
that the mind can receive and retain but a 
definite number of ideas, according to the 
size of each compared with the size of the 
whole mind. This, no one will pretend. 
But on the other hand, if each idea occu- 
pies the whole mind, there must be as many 
impressions, one upon the other, as the mind 
receives and retains ideas, a thing absolutely 
impossible, upon the surface of matter. 
This has great force in connection with the 
phenomenon of memory, for, if the mind be 
matter, all the ideas of a whole life must be 



impressed upon it, one upon the other, so as 
to be called up as occasions require, which 
is impossible ; for, in making a second im- 
pression upon matter, you necessarily oblit- 
erate the first. 

In materializing the mind, and then stor- 
ing it with the impressions, or images of 
things, or ideas, of half a century's accumu- 
lation, another difficulty is involved. Keep- 
ing in view the fact, that every portion of 
matter possesses form and fills space, these 
images, or ideas, adhering to the mind in 
any form or manner, must also, each for 
itself, occupy a portion of the physical di- 
mensions of the mind, as shown above ; and 
if these thoughts, ideas, or images of things, 
occupy space, their size, compared with each 
other, must necessarily be proportioned to 
the relative sizes oi' things they represent. 
Assuming this, it follows that the idea of a 
mountain, must necessarily, occupy more 
space in the mind than a pebble, and the 
thought of an elephant must fill more space 
in the mind than the thought of an ant. 
This, our own consciousness contradicts, and, 
of course, it cannot be true, and, per con- 
sequence, the mind cannot be material. 

We believe these difficulties cannot be 
obviated, only by a process of reasoning, 
applicable alone to spirit and not to matter ; 
and this will be to abandon the whole ground 
of the mind's materiality, for it will not do 
to assume that the mind is matter, and then 
reason as though it were spirit. Those who 
assert that mind is matter, are bound to ad- 
mit that it possesses all the known and es- 
sential properties of matter, and that it is 
governed by all the essential laws known 
to govern matter ; and, admitting these, the 
above reasoning stands in full force against 
the materiality of the human mind. But 
only admit the common theory, that the 
mind is spirit and not matter, and the above 
reasoning becomes totally inapplicable, and 
all the difficulties disappear. Suppose that 
the mind is immaterial, a spirit, constituting 
no part of the body ; that it is that which 
thinks and remembers, being a living soul, 
without figure, form, color, impenetrability, 



264 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



extension, divisibility, gravitation, attrac- 
tion or repulsion, and not one of the argu- 
ments, urged above, against the materiality 
of the mind can be brought to bear on the 
Bubject. 

4. The phenomenon of conscious identity 
and responsibility, proves the immateriality 
of the mind. 

The soul, the rational man, cannot be the 
body, nor any part of it, as is proved from 
the identity which the mind is conscious of 
maintaining from the dawn of existence to 
life's final close. There is no room for dis- 
pute about the fact of this consciousness ; it 
is the same in all, as all will admit. The 
man of three score and ten years, can look 
back to the hour of childhood, and trace 
his history through every intervening period, 
and is conscious that he has preserved his 
identity through the whole, and is now the 
same person that he was at the commence- 
ment of life's journey. Consciousness, is 
that notice which the mind takes of its own 
operations and modes of existence. Now, 
allow for a moment, that the mind is mate- 
rial, that the body, or some part of it, is 
the mind, and see what can be made out of 
this consciousness of identity. In such case, 
it is matter, the body, or some part of it, 
that is conscious of its identity, which must 
involve the greatest absurdities. 

(1.) Substitute the body, or that part of 
it which may be supposed to constitute the 
mind, for the term mind, and the absurdity 
will be seen at once. Consciousness is that 
notice which the body takes of its own ope- 
rations and modes of existence. This, every 
one knows is not true — the body is not 
conscious. Suppose the brain to be the 
mind, and it will not be true. We cannot 
say, consciousness is that notice which the 
brain takes of its own operations and modes 
of existence. The brain is not the subje-ct 
of this consciousness of identity ; every man 
is conscious that it was the same mind that 
thought, loved, hated, rejoiced, and sorrowed 
in time past, — that thinks, loves, hates, re- 
joices and sorrows now ; but no man is or 
can be conscious that he has the same brains 



now that he had in time past. It is then 
clear, that the mind is something distinct 
from the brain, and every other part of the 
body, as no part of the body is conscious, 
or the subject of consciousness. We can 
say that consciousness is that notice which 
the mind takes of its own operations, and 
every man's internal convictions tell him it 
is so ; but if we say that consciousness is 
that notice which the brain takes of its own 
operations, no man feels any internal con- 
viction of the truth of what we affirm. 

(2.) To make the brain, or any other 
part of the body, both the actor and the 
subject of this conscious identity, is to make 
consciousness utter a falsehood. It is not 
true that the body preserves its identity ; it 
is the perpetual subject of waste and reno- 
vation, keeping up a perpetual change of 
the particles of matter that compose every 
part of the body, even the brain itself Ac- 
cording to the admitted principles of phys- 
iology, a person at the age of seventy, must 
have changed every particle of matter com- 
posing his body, some ten times. I.^'he sys- 
tem is calculated for reception and dis- 
charge, and this is the operation perpetu- 
ally going on through life. This may be 
seen by the unlettered reader who has 
never studied physiology. He knoA\'s that 
he must take food every day to supply the 
perpetual waste of his system— that what 
he eats forms blood, and flesh, and bones. 
This could not be necessary, were there not 
a perpetual waste. This is further proved 
from the fact that the moment we cease to 
receive a sufficient degree of nutriment, the 
body begins to waste and become thinner ; 
as the saying is, it grows poor. A person 
may be nearly starved to death, or ema- 
ciated with sickness, until reduced to one 
quarter the usual weight, and then in a few 
weeks recover, and be as full and heavy as 
before. Does the body consist of the same 
particles of matter now that it did before ? 
Certainly not ; the waste has been supplied 
with new matter, and yet the person is 
conscious of having preserved his identity 
through all these changes ; he is certain 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



261 



that he that thinks and feels now, is he 
that thought and felt before these changes 
took place. This proves that the conscious 
mind, which preserves its identity amid all 
the changes of the body, is not the body ; 
it is a distinct substance from he body, re- 
maining unchanged. The body is not the 
subject of conscious identity ; this every 
rational person must know for himself, if he 
will reflect upon his own mental states. No 
man is or can be conscious that he has the 
same hands, feet or head, that he had ten 
years ago. He knows that they are the 
same from the impossibility of having 
changed them ; but this is not conscious- 
ness. Could his hands, feet or head be ex- 
changed while asleep, for others just like 
them, consciousness would not detect the 
change ; there would be the same con- 
sciousness of identity or continued self as 
before. This shows that it is not the iden- 
tity of the body of which we are conscious. 
A man is conscious that he is the same 
thinking, morally responsible being now, 
that he was ten years ago ; but he is not 
and cannot be conscious that he has even 
the same brains now that he had ten years 
ago. This proves that the conscious mind 
is something distinct from the body. 

Nearly allied to this consciousness of 
identity, is consciousness of responsibility ; 
in view of which conscience approves or 
condemns us for what we have done. It is 
the office of conscience to approve when we 
do right, and to condemn when we do 
wrong — if we can then determine upon what 
our conscious guilt falls, when conscience 
condemns us, we shall find the morally re- 
sponsible man, whether it be the body, or 
the soul, as distinct from the body. Sup- 
pose a man to have committed murder 
twenty years ago, and no one will doubt 
that he has carried in his bosom, the can 
ker worm of a guilty conscience ; his con 
sciousness tells him that it was he that com 
mitted the murder, and not another, while 
his conscience tells him that he is guilty in 
view of the offence. What then is guilty ? 
On what does the condemnation rest? 



Does the murderer feel that it is his feet 
that are in fault, that his hands are to 
blame, that his brains are guilty ? Surely 
not ; conscience never told a man that his 
brains were guilty in view of his wrong 
acts, and this simple fact proves that the 
brains do not constitute the intellectual and 
moral man ; if they did, our conscience 
would condemn our brains when we do 
wrong. Let the conscience-smitten sinner 
philosophize upon the operations of his own 
mind, and he will come to a right conclu- 
sion on this subject. 

5. The phenomenon of desire proves the 
mind to be spirit and not matter. 

The spirituality of the human soul may 
be inferred from the nature of its desires ; 
from its thirst for happiness, which can be 
slaked only by drinking at the fountain of 
spiritual bliss. That all men desire happi- 
ness will not be denied ; and that the great- 
er portion seek it where it is not to be 
found, must also be admitted. The reason 
is, they seek it in the gratification of their 
animal propensities, and in the enjoyment 
of material objects, which can never feed 
and satisfy a spirit-soul. If the mind was 
material, right reason must teach us, that 
matter could answer all the demands of its 
nature, and satisfy its most capacious de- 
sires. Nothing can be more reasonable, 
than that all beings should find the centre 
of their happiness, in the perfection and 
fulness of the elements of their own natures. 
If man were only matter, if his soul were only 
matter compounded of the elements of the 
material world, in the material world would 
exist his centre of attraction, and the foun- 
tain of his highest enjoyment. That mat- 
ter should seek an alliance with the spirit- 
ual world, and seek for fountains of spirit- 
ual bliss, and pant for spiritual joys, is as 
absurd and unphilosophical, as to suppose 
it to be governed by other than its own 
essential laws, and, to act in violation of 
the essential properties of its own nature. 
The fact that the world of matter, never 
did, and never can satisfy the desires of the 
human soul, is one of the clearest proofs 



266 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



that the soul is not itself matter. The 
world in any and all its forms, cannot 
satisfy the desires of one human soul ; give 
it all the elements of earth, sea and air, 
moulded into every possible form, and it 
will grasp the whole, and thirst and famish 
still, and pant for higher bliss ; there is 
still an aching void which God and love 
can fill. The reason of this is, the soul is 
not matter but spirit ; were it matter, in 
matter would it find the element of its own 
nature, and the fullness of its own happi- 
ness ; but it is a spirit, and in this respect 
like God. It originally came from God, 
and hence can be happy in God alone, as 
God dwells in us and we in God. But does 
God dwell in matter and matter in God ? 
Can matter have fellowship with the Father 
and the Son ? Can matter have communion 
with the Eternal Spirit ? Can matter drink 
joys from the fountains of the Godhead ? 

The desire of knowledge, taken in con- 
nection with the capacity of the mind to 
improve, with the comparative progress of 
tlie body and mind, furnishes another argu- 
ment in proof of its immateriality or spir- 
itual nature. That the soul commences its 
career without knowledge is admitted ; it 
has all to learn, but its capacity to learn 
furnishes the basis of the argument. The 
human mind is endowed with reason, which 
enables it to discover resemblances and 
differences, compare, judge, and deduce con- 
clusions. This is the foundation of im- 
provement, and distinguishes the human 
soul from the most intelligent of brutes, as 
well as from the material body in which it 
dwells. The mind in its present state is 
dependent upon the bodily organs for pri- 
mary ideas ; that is, the knowledge derived 
from seeing is received through the medium 
of the eyes, and the knowledge derived from 
hearing is received through the medium of 
the ears ; yet such is the capacity of the 
mind, and such the manner of its improve- 
ment, as to furnish clear evidence that it is 
not one with the body, but in its nature, a 
distinct and spiritual element. 

(1.) Its improvement is a distinct matter 



from the improvement of the body. The 
health of the body and mind frequently mu- 
tually effect each other, yet they are clearly 
distinct in their elemental nature. The 
body may grow and flourish in all the per- 
fection of health, and the mind make little 
or no progress. Again, the body may be 
of exceedingly frail structure, pale and wan, 
and yet a giant mind may develope itself 
from within. Some of the greatest geniuses 
the world has ever produced, have had but 
just body enough to hold the soul. These 
facts certainly indicate that the soul and 
the body are not one and the same thing. 

(2.) The body comes to maturity and 
begins to decline, at an age when the mind 
has but just commenced its career of im- 
provement. The mind often makes its 
greatest advancement, after the body has 
commenced its downward course in the 
scale of being. The body usually possesses 
its greatest power and activity at twenty- 
five ; at thirty it is in its full strength, but 
its activity begins to fail ; at forty the 
whole physical system enters upon the 
downward course of life, and from sixty to 
seventy, it is generally superannuated. But 
it is otherwise with the mind ; at twenty- 
five it has usually but begun to learn, its 
judgment is very far from being mature ; 
from thirty to forty it begins to develope 
its powers ; at fifty, sixty, and even seventy, 
the body being comparatively worn out, 
the mind is in its full strength and glory. 
This clearly proves, that the mind is not 
the body, that the growth of the one is not 
the growth of the other, and that the de- 
cay of the one is not the decay of the other. 

(3.) The phenomenon of what is called 
dotage, or second childhood, which some 
may regard as overthrowing the above view, 
when examined, will be found actually to 
support it. The apparent decay of the 
mind in cases of second childhood, by their 
want of uniformity, proves that the body 
and the soul are not one and the same thing, 
and that the decay oftheoneis not necessarily 
the decay of the other. If the mind were 
material — if it were not distinguished in 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



267 



the elements of its nature from the material 
body, then would the intellect necessarily 
and uniformly grow with the growth, and 
decay with the decay of the body. This is 
not the case ; mental imbecility is often 
discovered in those whose bodies are less 
impaired, and whose general health and 
vigor of body is far superior to others 
whose minds appear in their full strength. 
This could not be the case, if the mind did 
actually decay with the decay of the body. 
(4.) The doctrine of phrenology, makes 
the size of the brain the measure of mental 
power, and the comparative size of its parts 
an index to the prevailing mental propen- 
sities ; if admitted, would not prove the 
mind to be matter, or the brain to be the 
mind. The advocates of phrenology will 
not make this the issue, and base their sci- 
ence on the doctrine of materialism, to 
stand or fall with it. All that can be 
claimed for phrenology, is, that the brain is 
the material organ through which the mind 
acts, and developes itself in its incarnate 
state, and that it will, of course, develope a 
power proportioned to the size or strength 
of the brain ; and, that the prevailing di- 
rection of the mind will be indicated by the 
comparative size of the phrenological divis- 
ions of the brain. Admitting all this to be 
true, it does not, in itself, tend to materialism, 
since it supposes the brain to be only the 
organ of the mind, and not the mind itself. 
(5.) The mind often developes itself in its 
greatest power and glory, just at the mo- 
ment of death, shining out from an emaci- 
ated body, already wan and cold. These 
cases, of very frequent occurrence, clearly 
indicate that the mind is not the body : 
that it does not waste with it, and does not 
die with it. It is true that in some cases, 
the mind appears to decay with the decay- 
ing body, but to prove that it is the body 
or any part of it, this would have to be 
always so without exception, which is not 
the case. To make the argument plain, we 
say that a single instance in which the mind 
kindles up at the moment of death, and 
blazes out with unwonted intellectual fires, 



while the body is wan, cold and helpless, 
cannot be reconciled with the idea that the 
mind is any part of the material body, and 
that it wastes and dies with it. On the 
other hand, those cases in which the mind 
appears to waste with the body and go out 
like the sun, passing gradually behind a 
cloud, deeper and darker, until its last ray 
is lost, can be explained in perfect harmony 
with the theory of the immateriality of the 
mind, and even its immortality. Does the 
mind fail, as in second childhood — or does 
it grow gradually dim as the body wastes 
under the influence of disease ? The expla- 
nation is this : the bodily organs through 
which the mind communicates with the ma- 
terial world, in these particular cases, are 
impaired by age or disease. In many cases 
of death from sickness, the mind appears to 
waste away, or gradually sink into a state 
of sleep, merely because the will does not 
determine it in a direction to develope itself 
to the world without. But that the mind 
is there, distinct from the wasting, dying 
body, is clear from the many cases already 
referred to, in which the mind, being roused 
by the prospect of heaven, or seized v/ith 
the terror of impending perdition, flashes 
with the fires of immortality, and sheds a 
living glare as it quits its house of clay, and 
enters upon the destinies of the spirit 
world. 

This has often been witnessed in the dy- 
ing moments of both the Christian and the 
sinner. There are but few Christian pas- 
tors who have been long devoted to their 
work, that have not in their visits among 
the sick and dying, more than once stood 
by the bedside of those whose last moments 
left upon their minds a vivid impression of 
the undying nature of the human soul. 

lY. A principal objection answered, 
which may be urged against the preceding 
arguments. 

The objection is that if the arguments in 
support of the spirituality and immortality 
•of the human soul, based upon mental phe- 
nomena are sound, they must prove with 
equal certainty that brutes have immaterial 



268 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II, 



minds. In reply to the objection, it may 
be urged. 

1. If the objection be well founded, it 
does not prove the arguments unsound. 
"Will a man deny himself a soul, lest he 
should give one to his faithful dog ? Will 
men reason their own souls out of existence, 
lest they should reason one into brutes ? Who 
would not sooner embrace a theory which 
would elevate brutes to men, by giving 
them souls, than one which would degrade 
men to brutes, by taking away their souls. 
Is there anything more alarming in suppos- 
ing that brutes are so much like men as to 
have souls, than there is in supposing that 
men are so much like brutes as to have no 
souls. The objection supposes there is a 
difficulty in allowing that a horse is so much 
like a man as to have a soul, and yet he ap- 
pears to see no difficulty in supposing a man 
is so much like a horse as to have no soul. 
Most men would rather a horse should have 
a soul, than not to have one themselves. 
The arguments in question appear to prove 
the immateriality and immortality of the 
human soul, and if any one fancies that he 
can prove from them that brutes have souls, 
let him do it; that is no reason why we 
should do violence to the reason which God 
has given us, to escape the conclusion. But 
it will be made to appear that, while the 
arguments prove the immateriality of the 
human mind, without proving that brutes 
have souls, such souls as men have, yet if 
the consequence followed, there would be 
no occasion to abandon the arguments. 
Some eminent divines have held that brutes 
have immortal souls, and that they will 
have a future existence, yet their opinion 
appears to rest upon insufficient proof. 

2. The objection, if admitted, would in- 
volve the objector in precisely the same dif- 
ficulty, in relation to his own theory, which 
he charges upon the arguments above ad- 
vanced. 

It is supposed that the objection to ad- 
mitting that brutes have souls, is on the 
ground that it would give them a relation 
to the spirit world, and a future existence. 



This may be charged back upon himself; 
for whether you raise brutes to a level with 
men, by giving them souls, or degrade men 
to a level with brutes, by denying that they 
have souls, the result, in this particular, is 
the same, as it is admitted on both sides, 
that men do sustain a relation to the future 
world. Let it be noted that the objection 
is not founded upon a denial of the powers 
and susceptibilities of the human mind, upon 
which the preceding arguments rest, but 
upon the assumption that brutes possess the 
same powers and susceptibilities, or that 
they exhibit the same mental phenomena. 
If brutes do not exhibit the same mental 
phenonena as that upon which the argu- 
ments rest, then they prove nothing concern- 
ing brutes, and the objection falls to the 
ground. If beasts do exhibit the same men- 
tal phenomena, then they must possess the 
same intellectual and moral character, sus- 
tain the same relation to God's moral gov- 
ernment, and be equally entitled to a resur- 
rection and a future existence. The objec- 
tor may take which horn of the dilemma he 
pleases ; if he takes the former, his objection 
falls ; if he takes the latter, he involves him- 
self in it, and must fall under it. 

3. It is denied that brutes ever exhibit 
those mental phenomena upon which the 
arguments mainly rest. If this can be sus- 
tained, the objection falls, and the arguments 
will bear the souls of men upward to the 
immortal world, without carrying with them 
the spirits of brutes that go downward to the 
earth. The arguments are founded exclu- 
sively upon the intellectual and moral phe- 
nomena of the human mind, which brutes 
never exhibit. 

That brutes have some sort of mind there 
can be no doubt, and where there is mind, 
there is something besides matter. Brutes 
may have an immaterial element without 
having an immortal element. Man may 
have an animal nature in common with 
brutes, and that spiritual element in brutes, 
from which their mental phenomena results, 
may be, in man, the element which connects 
his material nature with the higher element 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



269 



of his spiritual and immortal nature. Be 
this as it may, it is certain that brutes never 
exhibit the essential elements of an intellec- 
tual and moral natqre, by which it can be 
made to appear that they sustain a relation 
to a future destiny. The elements of such a 
nature man does manifest. Some spirits are 
of a higher order than others, and hence the 
fact that brutes have minds, and per-conse- 
quence have associated with their material 
organization an inferior spiritual nature, 
neither proves them to be immortal, or in- 
validates the arguments by which man's 
spiritual and immortal nature has been 
proved from his mental phenomena. 

The argument turns on this one point ; 
do brutes exhibit all the mental phenomena, 
in kind, that men do, the difference being 
only in the degree of mental power ? or do 
men exhibit some mental qualities, of which 
brutes give no signs. The latter is the po- 
sition taken, and if it can be maintained, the 
objection must fall. 

Tt is not denied that men and brutes have 
some things in common. They both pos- 
sess sensation and perception, and brutes 
possess the first of these in as high a state 
of perfection as man ; they can feel, see, 
hear, taste, and smell, as acutely as men. 
But these constitute their entire mental 
powers and susceptibilities, and are the 
basis of all the mental phenomena they ex- 
hibit. To these man has added reason, in- 
volving consciousness, will, memory, con- 
science, hopes and fears, which brutes have 
not ; and these alone can constitute a moral 
agent, sustaining a relation to the retribu- 
tions of a future state. 

Sensation and perception, without reason 
amount only to instinct, which brutes have. 
Instinct is that power and disposition of 
mind by which animals are spontaneously 
led to do whatever is necessary for their 
preservation, and the continuance of their 
kind, independent of instruction and experi- 
ence. This, and not reason, leads the bee 
to form her comb, the spider to weave his 
web, and the beaver to build his house ; it 
13 this that impels the infant, in whom rea- 



son is not yet developed, to draw its first 
nutriment with as perfect skill as it ever can, 
and with a skill which, in nine cases out of 
ten, is lost in after years beyond the power 
of reason to recall. But all this differs 
widely from reason, which distinguishes men 
from brutes. Some of the principal points 
of difference shall now be stated. 

(1.) Instinct never improves, while it is 
the very nature of reason to progress. An- 
imals acting from instinct, perform the same 
acts in the same way for ten thousand gene- 
rations in succession ; while men, acting 
from reason, vary their plans, improve their 
skill, and push their results onward towards 
perfection. Eeason is that faculty which 
discovers resemblances, compares, judges 
and deduces conclusions. This results from 
what some call apperception, that is, pure 
thought. Animals have sensation and per- 
ception, but they never think ; their mental 
operations are limited to the sphere of sensa- 
tion and perception, while men abstract 
themselves from all that is external, and op- 
erate within by what is purely a thinking 
process ; they think of things far away, of 
things they never saw, heard, felt, tasted or 
smelt ; they think of thoughts, and com- 
pare thought with thought, and thing 
with thing. This is a mental process 
of which animals are clearly incapable ; and 
it is this that lays the foundation of improve- 
ment ; hence, men progress onward, and still 
onward to a higher destiny, while animals 
remain the same from age to age. Again, 
animal instinct never imparts to its fellow 
animal, the limited education it is capable 
of receiving from the more skilful hand of 
man. Some years since, the gullible por- 
tions of community, gaped with wonder at 
the performance of a learned pig, but one 
learned pig never educated his fellow pig in 
the arts of his profession, but the human 
mind under the influence of the higher en- 
dowments of reason, imparts its acquisitions 
to fellow minds. Thus the human mind is 
capable of improving itself, while each can 
impart its own acquisitions, and receive the 
acquisitions of others, marking the race dis- 



270 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



tinctly and undeniably as destined for, and 
capable of perpetual improvement, which in- 
dicates a preparation for a higher state of 
existence, and allies the race to some future 
destiny. On the other hand, as animals 
have not the mental elements of intellec- 
tual improvement, as none have conceived 
and developed philanthropic schemes for 
the improvement of their respective species, 
and as none ever have improved and broken 
the chain which bound them to the sphere 
and destiny of an instinctive brute ancestry ; 
they are not only separated from man by a 
chasm, so wide that no art of reasoning can 
link them on to human destiny, but they are 
distinctly marked as designed only for their 
present sphere, exhibiting no elements, suit- 
ed to, and making no preparation for a high- 
er dstiny. 

(2.) Men possess consciousness ; brutes 
do not. As consciousness is that notice 
which the mind takes of itself, of its own 
operations and modes of existence, it in- 
volves a purely thinking process or reflec- 
tion, which brutes cannot perform, they be- 
ing only capable of sensation and percep- 
tion as shown above. To explain, you may 
throw hot water upon a man, and a brute, 
and they both experience pain ; this pain is 
called sensation. But at the same time, 
both learn that hot water will produce pain, 
and both the man and the brute will be 
afraid of hot water in future, wherever they 
meet with it. This knowledge or idea which 
they obtain of the quality of hot water is 
called perception ; that is, they perceive the 
relation between the sensation, the pain, and 
the external object, hot water, that pro- 
duced the sensation, otherwise they would 
not avoid hot water the next time they met 
with it. But here the brute stops, never 
thinking about the sensation or percep- 
tion, only as they are revived by the pres- 
ence of hot water ; while the man will a 
thousand times call them up, and spend 
seasons in thinking about them, will review 
all the circumstances a thousand miles from 
the place where it happened, and without 
the presence of hot water to revive the sens-[ 



ation and perception. This is thought or 
reflection, and here comes in what is called 
consciousness of identity. While the brute 
never thinks of the sensation in the absence 
of the place and agent that produced it, nor 
of the perception of the quality of hot wa- 
ter, only when it is present ; the man reflects 
on the whole matter away from the place, 
and in the absence of the agent that pro- 
duced the sensation, and is conscious of his 
own identity ; that is, he takes notice that 
the mind that now thinks, is the same mind 
that, so many years ago, in such a place, by 
contact with hot water received such a sen- 
sation, and obtained such a perception of 
the quality of the external object that pro- 
duced the sensation. This is absolutely es- 
sential to a moral nature, and future ac- 
countability for present or past conduct, 
and as men possess it, they are allied to a fu- 
ture retribution ; and as brutes have it not, 
they cannot be allied to a future retribution. 

(3.) Men possess volition and will ; brutes 
do not. Brutes exercise a kind of choice, 
as a horse prefers fresh grass to dry hay, 
and as an animal often exhibits obstinacy by 
preferring to go in one direction, rather than 
to be driven in another, but these are only 
the impulses of instinct. The will of man, 
which involves accountability, is a very dif- 
ferent thing. A rational will supposes 
judgment, a power to compare diflPerent ob- 
jects which operate as motives, and to de- 
termine their comparative value. Brutes 
are never influenced by motives addressed to 
the understanding. An ox will make a 
choice of two bundles of hay, founded upon 
the sense of smell or taste ; but not upon a 
comparison of their relative nutriment or 
power to sustain life, nor even upon their 
comparative size, for this would require re- 
flection, comparison and judgment which 
constitute the elements of reason, which 
brutes never exhibit. 

(4.) Men possess the power of memory, 
which brutes have not. It is known that 
superficial observers often affirm that ani- 
mals have memory, but it is for want of dis- 
crimination that they affirm this. They 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



271 



mistake mere sensation and perception for 
memory. A horse may fall through a 
"bridge, and when he approaches that bridge 
again, or perhaps some other bridge, he will 
be alarmed ; but this is not memory ; the 
philosophy is this, the presence of the bridge 
revives the painful sensation and the per- 
ception, that the bridge produced the sensa- 
tion. To remember it, would be to retain a 
knowledge of it, and to make it a subject of 
thought and reflection ten years afterwards, 
a hundred miles from the place and object 
that produced the sensation. This men do, 
but horses never. 

A dog maybe in the habit of committing 
depredations in tlie cellar, and you will not 
cure him by punishing him in the barn. To 
render punishment effectual, it must be in- 
flicted in connection with the place where 
the mischief is done, or in connection with 
the thing injured, and then, though the ani- 
mal has no memory of the transactions, be- 
yond the mere sensation and perception, 
their presence revives them, and prevents a 
repetition of the fault. 

(5.) Men have conscience, but brutes have 
none. Some may have supposed that they 
have seen animals exhibit signs of conscience, 
upon the same principle that they have at- 
tributed to them the faculty of memory. 
The signs of compunction which they have 
thought them to exhibit, have grown out 
of the painful sensations of punishment for 
the same or similar offences, which have 
been revived by the sameness of the present 
offence or contiguity of place. This is 
clear from two circumstances. First, ani- 
mals never exhibit what are called signs of 
conscious guilt, for offences for which they 
have never been punished. Secondly, these 
signs, when they appear, are never increased 
but uniformly disappear under the influence 
of kind treatment. Kind treatment often 
awakens compunction in man, but never in 
an animal. 

(6.) Men are the subjects of hopes and 
fears, joys and sorrows, beyond the influence 
of their present sensations, but brutes are 
not. Man looks back to the dawn of his 



being, and sorrows, and rejoices over what 
is past, while, to the brute, the past has no 
existence, only so much as lives in present 
sensations. Man looks forward and expe- 
riences the joy of hope, and the torment of 
fear, gathered from periods far distant in 
the future, while, with brutes, futurity is all 
a blank, beyond what is connected with their 
present sensations. 

Y. The opinion of the Jews is clear on 
the subject. 

The first witness to be introduced is Jo- 
sephus, who is the first authority in matters 
relating to the Jews. 

" The Jews had for a great while, three 
sects of philosophers, peculiar to themselves ; 
the sect of the Essenes, and the sect of the 
Sadducees, and the third sort of opinions 
was that of those called Pharisees. 

" Now the Pharisees believe that souls 
have an immortal vigor in them, and that 
under the earth there will be rewards and 
punishments, accordingly as they have lived 
virtuously or viciously in this life. 

" But the doctrine of the Sadducees is 
this, that souls die with the body. But this 
doctrine is received but by a few, yet by 
those of the greatest dignity. But they are 
able almost to do nothing of themselves ; 
for when they become magistrates, as they 
are unwillingly and by force sometimes 
obliged to be, they addict themselves to the 
notions of the Pharisees, because the multi- 
tude would not otherwise hear them. 

'' The doctrine of the Essenes is this, that 
all things are best ascribed to God. They 
teach the immortality of souls, and esteem 
that the rewards of righteousness are to be 
earnestly striven for." — [Josephus, Book 18, 
Chap. 1. 

It is worthy of remark, that of the three 
sects into which the Jews were divided, two 
clearly believed in the immortality of the 
soul. Further, the Sadducees, who alone 
believed that the soul dies with the body, 
were very few in number, and had no influ- 
ence with the common people. This proves 
that theirs was not the doctrine of the Jews, 
but an exception to it. They were com- 



272 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



{book II. 



posed of a few of the wealthy high-livers, 
and were clearly a set of Jewish heretics, as 
is proved from the fact that Christ so clearly 
condemned their doctrine. 

The next witness we will introduce is the 
Jews' service book, containing their creed 
and prayers. 

The seventh article of their creed runs 
thus : — " I believe with a perfect faith that 
the prophecy of Moses, our instructor, (may 
his soul rest in peace) was true." In one 
of their Sabbath morning prayers, we find 
the following expression : " Therefore, the 
members of which thou hast formed us, the 
spirit and soul which thou hast breathed into 
us." 

In an evening prayer we find the follow- 
ing : — " Blessed be the Lord when we lie 
down, and blessed be the Lord when we rise 
up ; for in thy hand are the souls of the 
quick and the dead." 

The following is taken from a prayer 
which they read at funerals. After the lec- 
ture or discourse, the prayer is read, as fol- 
lows : — " We beseech thee, Lord, most 
merciful King ! in whose hand is the soul 
of every living thing, and the breath of all 
flesh ; let it be willed before thy presence 
that the lecture and our prayer be in behalf 
of [here the name of the dead person is pro- 
nounced] and be bountiful to her [or him] 
according to thy great mercy ; unfold for 
her [or him] the gate of mercy, compassion, 
and the garden of Eden ; and receive her 
[or him] with love and favor. Send unto 
her [or him] thy holy angels, to direct and 
to place her [or him] beneath the tree of 
life, near the souls of the righteous, virtuous 
and pious saints." 

The above extracts are sufficient to prove 
that the immortality of the soul is clearly 
recognized in the Jewish religion. The 
question here is not, are they right ? but 
do they believe in the immortality of the 
soul ? 

The third witness which we produce, is 
the Apochrypha. These writings are not 
quoted as Bible, but as history ; and though j 
they are not regarded as being divinely iu-j 



spired, they are Jewish writings, and are 
good authority in proof of the opinions 
that prevailed at the time they were writ- 
ten. A few plain texts will settle this ques- 
tion. 

2 Esdras ix. 11, 12 : " And they that 
loathed my law, while they had yet liberty, 
and when as yet place of repentence was 
open unto them, understood, but despised it, 
the same must know it after death by pain." 

This certainly looks like a belief in the 
conscious existence of the soul after the body 
is dead. 

Wisdom ix. 15 : " The corruptible body 
presseth down the soul, and the earthly ta- 
bernacle weigheth down the mind that mu- 
seth upon many things." 

This makes a clear distinction between 
the body and soul. The expression, corrup- 
tible body in contradistinction from soul, 
implies that the soul is not corruptible ; and 
earthly tabernacle, in contradistinction from 
the mind, that inhabits it, implies that the 
mind is not earthly. But there are more 
distinct proofs. 

Chap. xvi. 14 : "A man indeed killeth 
through his malice ; and the spirit, when it 
is gone forth, returneth not ; neither the 
soul received up cometh again." 

This cannot be made plainer by comment. 

Chap. iii. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 17, 18, 19 : 
" But the souls of the righteous are in the 
hand of God, and there shall no torment 
touch them. In the sight of the unwise 
they seemed to die, and their departure is 
taken for misery, and their going from us 
to be utter destruction ; but they are in 
peace. For though they be punished in the 
sight of men, yet is their hope full of im- 
mortality. And having been a little chas- 
tised, for God proved them and found them 
worthy for himself. As gold in the furnace 
hath he tried them, and received them as a 
burnt offering. But the ungodly shall be 
punished according to their own imagina- 
tions, which have neglected the righteous 
and forsaken the Lord. For though they 
live long, yet shall they be nothing regarded, 
and their last age shall be without honor ; 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



273 



or, if they die, they have no hope, neither 
comfort in the day of trial, for horrible is 
the end of the unrighteous generation." 

The above quotations are sufficient to 
prove that the writers of the Apochrypha, 
were believers in the immortality of the soul. 
It is said of the souls of the righteous, that 
*' in the sight of the unwise they seem to 
die," that " their going from us is taken to 
be utter destruction ; but they are in peace, 
— their hope is full of immortality." Noth- 
ing could be more to the point. The above 
is not quoted as inspiration, but only as any 
other writings would be quoted, to prove 
what were the opinions that prevailed at 
the time and place when the authors wrote. 
The books of the Apochrypha are supposed 
to have been written before the commence- 
ment of the Christian era, and were clearly 
written by Jews, who were familiar with 
the Jewish religion, and are therefore good 
authority, in proof that the doctrine of the 
immortality of the soul prevailed at that 
time. 

The final witness on this point is the 
Bible. The Bible argument has been ad- 
vanced, and will not be repeated, but a few 
texts will be introduced, to show what was 
the prevailing belief of the Jews. The 
Jews held the common doctrine of the ap- 
pearance of ghosts or spirits, which is insep- 
arable from a belief in the existence of the 
soul after death. A few texts will settle 
this point. 

Matt. xiv. 26 : " And when the disciples 
saw him walking on the sea, they were 
troubled, saying, it is a spirit : and they 
cried out for fear." 

Mark vi. 49 : " But when they saw him 
walking upon the sea, they supposed it had 
been a spirit, and cried out." 

Luke xxiv. 36-39 ; " And as they thus 
spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of 
them, and saith unto them, peace be unto 
you. But they were terrified and affrighted, 
and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 
And he said unto them, why are ye troubled ? 
and why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? 
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I 
18 



myself ; handle me and see, for a spirit hath 
not flesh and bones as you see me have." 

These texts not only prove that the Jews 
believed in the existence of departed spirits, 
but they appear to give it the sanction of 
Christ. He did not even give them the 
slightest hint that they were in error in 
beliving in the existence of spirits. The 
fact that he was tangible, he appears to 
consider sufficient proof that he was not a 
spirit. 

Acts xxiii. 8 : " For the Sadducees say 
that there is no resurrection, neither angel, 
nor spirit : bufthe Pharisees confess both." 
This text taken in connection with other 
well understood facts, most clearly proves 
what was the general doctrine of the Jews. 
The Sadducees were few ia number, while 
the Pharisees were numerous, and lead the 
masses. Again, Christ condemned the doc- 
trine of the Sadducees, and approved of 
that held by the Pharisees. See Matt, 
xxii. 23 ; Mark xii. 18 ; and Luke xx. 27. 
The Sadducees were clearly a set of heretics, 
and the Pharisees held the true doctrine on 
the subject. What then did the Pharisees 
believe? Just what the Sadducees denied, 
which was the resurrection of the dead, and 
the existence of disembodied or immaterial 
beings in the form of angels or departed 
spirits. " The Pharisees confess both." 
Both denotes two things, viz : the resurrec- 
tion of the dead, which is the first thing de- 
nied by the Sadducees, and the existence of, 
angels and disembodied spirits, which is the 
second thing denied by the Sadducees ; the 
existence of angels and spirits being classed 
together as one article of faith. The Pha- 
risees were the orthodox Jews, and were 
the representatives of the national doctrine, 
and they confessed both ; that is, they con- 
fessed, first, that the dead would be raised, 
and, secondly, that there are angels and dis- 
embodied spirits. This clearly proves the 
point, that they believed that the soul exists 
after the death of the body. 

YI. The Primitive Church believed that 
the soul maintained a conscious existence 
after the death of the body. The following 



274 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



quotations are from Arch-bishop Wake's 
Apostolic Father's, London edition, 1840. 

The following, from the first epistle of 
St. Clement to the Corinthians, clearly con- 
tains the doctrine for which we contend : 

" Let us set before our eyes the holy apos- 
tle ; Peter, by unjust envy, underwent, not 
one or two, but many sufferings ; till at last, 
being martyi-ed, he went to the place of 
glory that was due unto him. For the same 
cause did Paul in like manner receive 
the reward of his patience. Seven times 
he was in bonds ; he was whipped, was 
stoned ; he preached both in the east and 
in the west, leaving behind him the glo- 
rious report of his faith ; and so having 
taught the whole world righteousness, and 
for that end traveled even to the utmost 
bounds of the west, he at last suffered mar- 
tyrdom, by the command of the governors, 
and departed out of the world, and went 
unto his holy place, being become a most 
eminent pattern of patience unto all ages. 

" To these holy apostles were joined a very 
great number of others, who, having through 
envy undergone, in like manner, many pains 
and torments, have left a glorious example 
to us. For this, not only men, but women, 
have been persecuted, and, having suffered 
very grievous and cruel punishments, have 
finished the course of their faith with firm- 
ness, and, though weak in body, yet received 
a glorious reward." — [P. 60. 

The above speaks too plainly to be mis- 
understood. Of Paul it is said, he " de- 
parted out of this world and went to his 
holy place." If Paul's soul died with his 
body, and both sleep until now ; if his great 
mind was only his brains, which were de- 
composed after his death, the fluids evapora- 
ted, and the solids returned to dust, to be 
blown in ten thousand directions ; in the 
name of common sense, to what holy place 
did he go ? So of all the Martyrs, it is said, 
they " received a glorious reward." 

The following is from the Epistle of St. 
Polycarp to the Phihppians : 

" Wherefore I exort all of ye that ye obey 
the word of righteousness, and exercise all 



patience, which ye have seen set forth before 
your eyes, not only in the blessed Ignatius, 
and Zozimus, and Rufus, but in others among 
yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest 
of the apostles. Being confident of this, 
that all these have not run in vain, but in 
faith and righteousness, and are gone to the 
place that was due to them from the Lord, 
with whom also they suffered ; for they loved 
not this present world, but him who died, 
and was raised again by God for us.'' — 
[P. 109. 

Here it is declared that those who were 
dead " are gone to the place that was due 
to them from the Lord." Was that place 
non-existence ? Surely not, for he said, " I 
go to prepare a place for you." " Father, 
I will that they also whom thou hast given 
me, be with me where I am ; that they may 
behold my glory." 

The following is from the Epistle of Ig- 
natius to the Trallians : 

" Stop your ears therefore, as often as any 
one shall speak contrary to Jesus Christ, 
who was of the race of David, of the Vir- 
gin Mary ; who was truly born, and did eat 
and drink ; and was truly persecutrd under 
Pontius Pilate ; was truly crucified and 
dead, both those in heaven and on earth, 
and under the earth, being spectators of it. 
Who was also truly raised from the dead by 
his Father, after the manner as He will also 
raise up us who believe in him, by Christ 
Jesus, without whom we have no true life." 
—[P. 142. 

The strong point in this extract is the as- 
sertion that, " those in heaven and on earth, 
and under the earth," were spectators of 
Christ's death and resurrection. This three- 
fold expression includes the living, the saved 
and the lost, and of course death was not, 
in the mind of the writer, the extinction of 
being. 

The following is from the Epistle of St. 
Ignatius to the Romans. 

" But I would not that ye should please 
men, but God ; whom also ye do please. 
For neither shall I ever hereafter have such 
an opportunity of going unto God ; nor will 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



275 



you, if ye shall now be silent, ever be enti 
tied to a better work. For if you shall be 
silent in my behalf, I shall be made a par- 
taker of God ; but if you shall love my 
body, I shall have my course again to run." 
—[Pages 146, 147. 

Again, he says : 

" All the ends of the world, and the king- 
doms of it, will profit me nothing ; I would 
rather die for Jesus Christ, than rule to the 
utmost ends of the earth. Him I seek who 
died for us ; Him I desire who rose again 
for us. This is the gain that is laid up for 
me. Pardon me, my brethren ; ye shall not 
hinder me from living : [nor, seeing I de- 
sire to go to God, may you separate me 
from him for the sake of this world ; nor 
seduce me by any of the desires of it] . Suf- 
fer me to enter into pure light ; where being 
come, I shall be indeed the servant of God." 
—[Pages 148, 149. 

In the above extracts, the writer is speak- 
ing of his impending martyrdom, and re- 
quests them not to interfere to prevent it. 
He calls it, " going to God," and being 
" made partaker of God." He represents 
their preventing his martyrdom, as hindering 
him " from living ;" and separating him 
" from God for the sake of the world ;" and 
finally, he represents his suffering martyr- 
dom, the same as to " enter into pure light ; 
where being come," he says, " I shall be the 
servant of God." Surely, he did not believe 
his material brains were all the mind he 
had, nor could he have embraced the cold, 
dark doctrine of the death-sleep of the soul. 

The following is from the same author's 
epistle to the Smyrneans : 

" Now all these things he suffered for us, 
that we might be saved. And he suffered 
truly, as he also truly raised up himself ; 
and not, as some unbelievers say, that he 
only seemed to suffer, they themselves only 
seeming to be. And as they believe, so it 
shall happen unto them ; when being dives- 
ted of the body, they shall become mere 
spirits." — [Pages 158, 159. 

" Being brought to him, and communica- 
ting to him some spiritual gifts, and glory- 
ing in his bonds, he entreated, first of all, the 



whole church (for the churches and cities of 
Asia attended this holy man by their bish- 
ops, and priests, and deacons, all hastening 
to him, if by any means they might receive 
some part of his spiritual gift), but more 
particularly Polycarp, to contend with God 
in his behalf ; that being suddenly taken by 
the beasts from the world, he might appear 
before the face of Christ. And this he thus 
spake, and testified, extending so mach his 
love for Christ as one who was about to re- 
ceive heaven through his own good confes- 
sion, and the earnest contention of those who 
prayed together with him. — [Pp. 179, 180. 

The following is from the account of the 
martyrdom of St. Ignatius : 

" Wherefore with much readiness and 
joy out of his desire to suffer, he left Anti- 
och and came to Seleucia ; from whence he 
was to sail. And after a great deal of toil, 
being come to Smyrna, he left the ship with 
great gladness and hastened to see the holy 
Polycarp, his fellow scholar, who was bishop 
there ; for they had both of them been for- 
merly the disciples of St. John. 

" Wherefore being supported by the grace 
of Christ, they despised all the torments of 
the world ; by the sufferings of an hour re- 
deeming themselves from everlasting punish- 
ment. For this cause, even the fire of their 
cruel and barbarous executioners seemed 
cold to them ; whilst they hoped thereby to 
escape that fire which is eternal, and shall 
never be extinguished ; and beheld with the 
eyes of faith, those good things which are 
reserved for them that endure to the end ; 
which neither ear has heard, nor eye sesn, 
nor have they entered into the heart of man.' 
But to them they were now revealed by the 
Lord ; as being no longer men, but already 
become angels." — [P. 193. 

" But when the emulous, and envious, and 
wicked adversary of the race of the just, 
saw the greatness of his martyrdom, and 
considered how irreprehensible his conver- 
sation had been from the beginning, and 
how he was now to be crowned with the 
crown of immortality, having without ail 
controversy received his reward, he took all 
possible care that not the least remainder 



276 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



of his body should be taken away by us, 
although many desired to do it, and to be 
made partakers of his holy flesh. And to 
that end, he suggested it to Nicetas, the 
father of Herod and brother of Alee, to go 
to the governor, and hinder him from giv- 
ing us his body to be buried." — [P. 200. 

Ignatius suffered martyrdom in the 147th 
year of the Christian era. 

The next work we will introduce, is the 
Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Euse- 
bius wrote the first history of the Christian 
Church, that was ever written, excepting 
the Acts of the Apostles, and his work is 
the best authority concerning the first three 
centuries of the Christian Era, which we 
have, after the New Testament itself. A 
few extracts will be sufficient. We quote 
by page, from the Philadelphia edition, 
1833. It will be seen that Eusebius speaks 
of some of the same transactions as those 
described by some of the other writers pre- 
viously quoted. In speaking of the mar- 
tyrdom of Polycarp, he makes the follow- 
ing remark cencerning him, after he was 
dead : " But that envious and malignant 
adversary, that wicked enemy of all the 
righteous, seeing the lustre of his martyr- 
dom, and his uniform walk and conversa- 
tion, and him now crowned with the crown 
of immortality, and bearing off the indispu- 
table prize, had provided that not even his 
corpse could be obtained by us." — [P. 148. 

This clearly speaks of his having been 
already crowned with the crown of immor- 
tality, while his corpse was yet with them 
Tinbaried. A clearer proof could hardly 
be given, of the writer's belief in the im- 
mortality of the soul. 

In giving an account of the martyrdom 
of Lucius, he represents him as saying to 
his judge, " I thank thee, for now I am lib- 
erated from wicked masters, and am going 
to God."— [P. 154. 

In speaking of the martyrs that suffered 
in Gaul, he says : " The firmness of the 
champions for the true religion, their forti- 
tude in the endurance of numberless trials, 
their trophies erected over demoniacal 



agency, and their victories over their in- 
visible antagonists, and the crowns that 
have been placed upon all these ; it would 
proclaim and perpetuate by an everlasting 
remembrance." — [P. 168. 

In speaking of the martyrdom of Blan- 
dina, he says : " Thus she overcame the en- 
emy, in many trials, and in the conflict re- 
ceived the crown of immortality." — [P. 176. 

Again it is said : " But the blessed Blan- 
dina, last of all, as a noble mother that had 
animated her children and sent them as 
victors to the king, herself with joy hasten- 
ed to them, as if she were invited to a mar- 
riage feast, and not to be cast to wild 
beasts."— [P. 179. 

Of the martyrs in general, he says : 
" Always lovers of peace, they always re- 
commended peace, and with peace they de- 
parted to God."— [P. 182. 

All these passages contain clear evidence 
of a belief in the doctrine of an interme- 
diate state, on the part of the martyrs. 
Lucius said, when suffering martyrdom, 
" I am going to God." The expression, 
" the crowns that have been placed upon 
all these," when applied to the dead, proves 
a belief in the life of the soul after the death 
of the body. " She received the crown of 
immortality," spoken of one already dead, 
proves the point. The martyrs are said to 
have been sent away to the king, and then 
Blandina is said to have hastened to them, 
when she was martyred. In the face of 
these proofs, are we to be told that the 
early Christians believed that soul and bo- 
dy die together, and must sleep together 
until the end of the world. 

When Basilides, an officer, was leading 
Potamisena to execution, he protected her 
against the insults of the multitude, in view 
of which, it is said of her, " Perceiving the 
man's sympathy, she exhorted him to be 
of good cheer, for that after she was gone, 
she would intercede for him with her Lord, 
and it would not be long before she would 
reward him for his kind deeds towards her." 
—[P. 224. 

Soon after the above occurrence, Basili' 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



277 



des himself was committed to prison, on his 
own declaration that he was a Christian ; 
and when some of the brethren called upon 
him to learn the ground of his sudden 
change, " he is said to have declared that 
Potamiseua, three days after her martyr- 
dom, standing before him at night, placed 
a crown upon his head, and said that she 
had entreated the Lord on his account, and 
that she had obtained her prayer, and that 
ere long she would take him to her." — [lb. 

The reader may abate what he pleases 
for the vision part of this extract, and still 
it will prove all that we claim to prove by 
it, viz : what was the belief, at that time, 
concerning the life of the soul after the 
death of the body. If the vision was a 
reality, our doctrine has the proof of a 
miracle ; but suppose it to have been a 
creature of the fancy, it still contains the 
following facts : First, the martyr, while 
being led to execution, instead of supposing 
her soul was about to die with her body, 
she believed it would live, and so enter into 
the presence of Christ, as to enable her to 
intercede with him for her sympathizing ex- 
ecutioner. Secondly, this was also be- 
lieved by the executioner, a military officer, 
making such an impression on his mind, 
that he fancied he saw her in a vision, un- 
less she did really appear to him ; and so 
strong was his belief that the martyr's soul 
was alive after her body had been burned 
to ashes, and that he had seen her, that he 
submitted to be beheaded for the sake of 
the faith. Thirdly, the most learned and 
pious Christian writers of those times, re- 
corded these things, most clearly, in full 
faith that they were true. This proves be- 
yond a doubt, that Christians generally, at 
that time, must have held that the soul 
lives after the body is dead. 

On one occasion, when the judge had con- 
demned one to martyrdom, and he had been 
executed, another was seized and brought 
before him, and then it is said, that the 
judge, " as if to urge him to attach himself 
to the former as his companion on the way 
to heaven, commanded him immediately to 



be put to death."— P. 372. This clearly 
shows that the death sleep of the soul was 
unknown to the faith and language of those 
times. 

Of this same martyr, it is said again, " He 
was the tenth after those wrestlers men- 
tioned, that were perfected on one and the 
same day, on which, as is probable, the 
mighty portals of eternal life were opened 
to Famphilus, in a manner worthy of the 
man, and presented to him and to others, a 
ready entrance into the Kingdom of Heav- 
en." — lb. 

Such expressions, as the portals of eter- 
nal life being open to men when they die, 
giving a " ready entrance into the Kingdom 
of Heaven," clearly prove that the doctrine 
of the immortality of the soul, was held by 
the writers. One John, an Egyptian Chris- 
tian, is said to have lost his eyes, and to 
have been crippled in his limbs, by the tor- 
tures he endured ; yet such was his memory, 
that he could repeat whole books of the sar 
cred Scriptures. In speaking of having 
seen him and heard him address an assembly, 
our author says : " I seemed to behold an 
evidence, and solid proof in facts, that not 
he who appears in the external form is 
the real man, but in truth that which is in 
the soul and mind. For he, though mutila- 
ted in body, exhibited the greater power." 
—[P. 177. 

On the subject of the errors of the times, 
Eusebius says : " But about this time, other 
men sprung up in Arabia, as the propaga- 
tors of false opinions. These asserted, that 
the human soul, as long as the present state 
of the world exists, perished at death and 
died with the body, but that it would be 
raised again with the body at the time of the 
resurrection. And as a considerable coun- 
cil was held on account of this, Origen, be- 
ing again requested, likewise here discussed 
the point in question, with so much force, 
that those who had before been led astray, 
completely changed their opinions."- [P. 253. 

Enough has been said on the subject, and 
here the argument for the immortality of 
the soul is closed. 



278 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



SECTION IV. 
The Intermediate State. 

By the intermediate state, is meant the 
state of human souls between death and the 
resurrection. 

The fact of such a state depends in part, 
upon the fact that there is to be a general 
resurrection and judgment, yet as the im- 
mortality of the soul has been demonstra- 
ted, this appears to be the proper place to 
consider the state of the soul, immediately 
after death. 

The fact of a general resurrection and 
final judgment, will be the next points for 
consideration, but before entering upon them, 
let the condition of the soul in its separate 
state be noticed. That the human soul 
maintains a conscious existence after the 
body is dead, was demonstrated in the pre- 
ceding section. The fundamental truth to 
be maintained, is that the intermediate state 
embraces both a state of happiness and 
misery, the one enjoyed by the saved, and 
the other endured by the lost. 

These points have been proved in fact, 
by the arguments by which the immortality 
of the soul has been established, but they 
need to be more distinctly stated. 

The etghteous enter upon a state 
of happiness, at or immediately after 

DEATH. 

This point need not be proved as a simple 
truth, as all who admit the immortality of 
the soul, believe it, and those who do not 
admit the immortality of the soul, are re- 
ferred to the preceding section. The only 
point of discussion in regard to the ques- 
tion, is, whether the souls of the righteous 
enter heaven -at once, or whether they oc- 
cupy an intermediate place, between death 
and the resurrection. On this point there 
has been a difference of opinion among 
learned and able writers, in regard to which 
Dr. Dwight says, " There has been no small 
debate among Divines ; and those also of 
great reputation ; concerning the place, 
where the dead will reside, between thek de- 



parture from this world, and the final judg- 
ment. It must be acknowledged that tne 
language of the Scriptures, furnishes a foun- 
dation for some difference of opinion con- 
cerning it. Several expressions, found in 
both Testaments, seem to indicate an inter- 
mediate place, as' well as an intermediate 
state of existence, between this world and 
the final scenes of retribution. After a con- 
siderable examination of this subject, and 
an examination of several able commenta- 
tors, who have handled it to some extent, I 
am obliged to confess myself not altogether 
satisfied ; and to say, that, hitherto I have 
found difliculties on both sides. It is un- 
doubtedly true that the Hebrew Sheol and 
the Greek Hades, commonly rendered hell, 
or the grave, in our Translation, do not 
properly signify either, but always, the world 
of departed spirits. But whatever may be 
true concerning an intermediate place of ex- 
istence, there can, I apprehend, be no rea- 
sonable doubt concerning an intermediate 
state." — [Dwight's Theology, Sermon 159. 

The last remark of Dr. Dwight is no 
doubt true ; there must be an intermediate 
state and this is all that it is necessary to 
maintain. 

I. A distinct place, as the abode of the 
souls of the righteous, between death and 
the final judgment, cannot be maintained. 

1. The righteous dead are clearly repre- 
sented as being with Christ. Paul had a 
desire to depart and to be with Christ ; 
Phil. i. 23. Again he taught the Corinthians 
that to be at home in the body, that is to 
live, is to be absent from the Lord ; and 
to be absent from the body, that is to die, is 
to be present with the Lord ; 2 Cor. v. 6, 8. 
So Stephen saw the heavens open, and saw 
Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 
and said, " Lord Jesus rective my spirit ;" 
Acts vii. 55-59. These texts are sufficient 
to prove that the pious dead are with Christ 
where he is, and that is heaven. They all 
refer to a period between death and the Gen- 
eral Judgment. 

Whatever difference there may be be- 
tween the condition of the saints before and 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



279 



after the judgment, does not arise out of a 
difference of locality, but from other cir- 
cumstances. What ideas of locality exist 
in the spirit world we know not, nor do we 
know the relation which this material world 
sustains to the world of spirits. The spirit 
world may be here, and angels and disem- 
bodied human souls, and God and Christ, 
might all appear present to us, if we were 
freed from our material organism. Yet 
there is clearly a place which is called hea- 
ven, which is in some way distinguished 
from other places, and to that abode of the 
blessed there can be no doubt departed saints 
have access, even before the final judgment. 

2. The idea of an intermediate place 
may have grown out of the fact of an in- 
termediate state, or out of the fact tliat In- 
spiration has used terms to describe the in- 
termediate state, which are never used to 
express the final state of the saints after the 
judgment. 

As remarked by Dr. Pwight, the Hebrew 
word sheol, and the Greek word hades, are 
used to express the place of the spirits of 
the dead, and in this sense they include both 
the world of happiness and of misery, but 
only the state of the dead this side of the 
judgment. It may be affirmed that the words 
are never used to denote the place or state 
of the righteous beyond the judgment. 

Psal. xvi. 10 : " For thou wilt not leave 
my soul in hell ; neither wilt thou suffer thy 
Holy One to see corruption." 

These words were spoken of Christ and 
have reference to the state or place he was 
in between his death and resurrection. 

They are thus applied by Peter. Acts 
ii. 27 : " Because thou wilt not leave my 
soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy 
One to see corruption." 

Peter affirms that David spake concerning 
Christ before quoting the above words, and 
then adds, in the 31st verse, that he spake 
those words, " of the resurrection of Christ 
that his soul was not left in hell neither did his 
flesh see corruption." In the Hebrew text 
sheol is the word rendered hell, and in the 
Greek text the word is hades. It is then 



clear that the soul of Christ went to hell, in 
the sense in which those words are some- 
times used. On this the Romish doctrine is 
based, that Christ actually descended into 
the place of the damned, but the error arises 
from overlooking the fact that the words 
are sometimes used to denote the place of 
the dead in general, whether happy or mis- 
erable. 

But where did Christ go. He went into 
the place of departed spirits, but his soul 
was not left there because his body did not see 
corruption, but was raised again. But what 
David called sheol, hell, and Peter called 
hades, hell, Christ himself called paradise. 
Luke xxiii. 43. Christ said to the dying 
malefactor, " To-day shalt thou be in para- 
dise." Christ then went to paradise, and 
Paul uses the word paradise to denote the 
third heaven. 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4. The expla- 
nation of all this is, the words sheol and ha- 
des, commonly rendered hell, are used, some- 
times at least, to denote the world of depart- 
ed spirits, and within the general sense of 
the word is found, the hades, hell, where the 
rich man lifted up his eyes being in torment, 
(Luke xvi. 23,) and the hades, where Christ 
and the dying penitent went, is called also 
paradise. The word hades, hell, is not ap- 
plied to the condition of men, good or bad, 
after the final judgment. Where the word 
hell occurs in the New Testament, to denote 
the place of the final punishment, the word 
in the Greek is not Icades, but Gehenna. If 
these facts are well considered, some of the 
obscurity which has been thrown over the 
subject will be removed, and there will be 
but little left which will require an inter- 
mediate place for the righteous dead, or but 
little foundation upon which to build one, 
but it may be otherwise with regard to an 
intermediate state. 

II. There is clearly an intermediate state, 
in which the souls of the righteous repose 
between death, and the resurrection and 
general judgment. 

It has been seen that the souls of the good 
go to a place of happiness when they die, 
and that they are " with Christ/' in Paul's 



280 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



language, but it does not follow that their 
happiness is, in every .particular, the same 
in kind and as great in degree, as it will be 
after the resurrection and the final judg- 
ment. 

1. If the resurrection body is to be a 
source of happiness to the soul, which can 
not be doubted, all that amount will be 
added to the happiness enjoyed in the inter- 
mediate state. 

This must render the state after the res- 
urrection, very different from the interme- 
diate state, during which the soul exists 
without a body. We cannot comprehend 
this difference now, yet we know it must be 
great. The difference cannot fail to be 
marked by all the glory ascribed to the 
resurrection body. The Apostle Paul tells 
us, 1 Cor. XV. 43, 44, that at the resurrec- 
tion, the bodies of the saints will be raised 
spiritual bodies, in incorruptiou, glory and 
power, and such a body joined to the soul, 
cannot fail to render the final state very dif- 
ferent from the intermediate state. 

2. The solemnities of the day of judgment, 
embracing the investigation of the case of 
the righteous, and the decision and reward 
pronounced, appear to imply more, yea, 
much more than is possessed and enjoyed 
during the intermediate state. An allusion 
to a few of these representations will suffice. 

" Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit 
the kingdom, prepared for you from the 
foundation of the world." Again, the right- 
eous are said, then, to " go into life eternal." 
Matt. XXV. 31, 46. This language appears 
to imply, that during the intermediate state, 
however happy and glorified they may be, 
they do not fully inherit the kingdom, and 
that then, on the rendition of the final decis- 
ion, they, for the first time, enter upon the 
full beatitude of life eternal. 

Paul, in summing up his life with refer- 
ence to his final destiny, says, 2 Tim. iv. 8 : 
*' Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown 
of righteousness, which the Lord, the right- 
eous Judge, shall give me at that day : and 
not to me only, but unto all them also that 
love his appearing." 



From the naming of the Judge, and the 
time, " at his appearing," the reference is 
clear to the final judgment, and hence, 
though Paul expected to be with Christ aF5 
soon as he died, which he declared was far 
better than to live, yet he did not expect to 
enjoy his crown until the final judgment. 

So Peter wrote to the faithful ministers 
of his time, 1 Peter v. 4 : " When the chief 
shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a 
crown of glory that fadeth not away." 

The appearing of the chief shepherd, 
doubtless, refers to the coming of Christ at 
the day of judgment. 

All the happiness that virtue and holiness 
produce of themselves, in the human soul, 
and what will necessarily arise from its 
place and associations, will be enjoyed by 
the saints in the intermediate state, and it 
may be very great, but the reward pro- 
nounced and bestowed, will not be enjoyed 
until the judgment of the last day. There 
is then an intermediate state of happiness, 
distinguished from what will be the state of 
the saved after the resurrection and final 
judgment. 

The wicked enter upon a state op 
punishment or suffering at or immedi- 
ately after death. 

It is proper to devote full attention to 
this point, in view of the fact that some 
persons deny all suffering in the future state. 
They maintain that all punishment for sin 
and all suffering are confined to this life, 
and that when men die, their souls enter at 
once upon a state of eternal blessedness. In 
opposition to this view, the point to be 
proved is, that all who pass impenitent and 
unsaved from this world, will be the subjects 
of sin and suffering in the future state. The 
duration of suffering, whether it will be end- 
less or not, is not in issue here, the argu- 
ment comprehends only the period which 
lies between death and the resurrection and 
final judgment. 

So the argument takes for granted, that 
the soul will maintain a conscious existence 
after death ; the argument is not with those 
who maintain the death sleep of the soul, 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



281 



but with those who maintain the universal 
happiness of souls immediately after death. 
The former class were attended to in the 
preceding section ; the latter are to be at- 
tended to in this. 

The argument also takes for granted, that 
sin, and a sense of personal guilt, associated 
with the conscious existence of the soul after 
death, will necessarily render it the subject 
of misery in a greater or less degree. This 
will not be denied, for, to suppose that fu- 
ture happiness and sin will be associated in 
the same human soul, is subversive of the 
entire Gospel economy of salvation. There 
can be no way of escaping the idea of suffer- 
ing between death and the resurrection, but 
by denying the conscious existence of the 
soul, or by denying the existence of sin af- 
ter death, and maintaining that all human 
souls are free from sin and guilt so soon as 
they leave the body. The conscious exist- 
ence of the soul was proved in the preceding 
section, and now it is only required to prove 
that sin will exist, that the soul will be 
guilty after death, and future suffering will 
follow as a necessary consequence. This 
gives great scope to the argument, and ren- 
ders any text, or any fact which estabhshes 
the existence of either sin or misery after 
death, proof positive of the main proposi- 
tion ; that is, that all who pass impenitent 
and unsaved from this world, will be the 
subjects of sin and suffering in the next. 
Keeping the conscious existence of the soul 
after death before the mind, the reader's at- 
tentio 
ments 

I. The Scriptures teach in the most di- 
rect and positive manner, that sinners are 
the subjects of suffering after death. This 
they do by affirming the existence of pun 
ishment after death, and by teaching that 
sinners will possess the moral character 
there with which they leave this world 

Psa. ix. 17 : " The wicked shall be turned 
into hell, and all the nations that forget 
God." , 

Hell, here means the place of departed 
spirits, and as the wicked are to be turned 



into it, they will be wicked still, and hell 
will be to them what it was to the rich man, 
who lifted up his eyes being in torment. It 
will not do to render sheol, grave, in this 
text, because it would not then distinguish 
the wicked from the righteous, for they too, 
are turned into the grave, but hell, or the 
place of spirits, "does distinguish them, be- 
cause the fact of their wickedness renders 
sheol to them, a different place from what it 
is to the righteous. Plell does not mean a 
guilty conscience, for the wicked are turned 
into hell ; not hell into the wicked. 

Psal. cxvi. 3 : " The sorrows of death 
compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold 
upon me : I found trouble and sorrow." 

Hell is here contemplated as a place of 
suffering, and the writer, in his guilt, antici- 
pated its pain and anguish as many sinners 
have, and hence, he says, in the next verse, 
" Then called I upon the name of the Lord : 

Lord, I beseech thee, deliver my soul." 
Prov. xiv. 32 : " The wicked is driven 

away in his wickedness, but the righteous 
hath hope in his death." 

In this text, being driven away in wick- 
edness, stands opposed to hope in death. It 
follows, then, that the righteous have hope 
in their death, and that the wicked are 
without hope in death. Now, hope always 
relates to the future ; hence, in death, amid 
the pangs of dissolving natm^e, as the world 
recedes from our vision, hope must take hold 
of the realities of a future state ; and as the 
wicked are driven away in their wickedness, 
in distinction from the righteous who have 
hope in their death, their states must be 
different in the future world. If sin only 
effects the sinner in this life, he must have 
as much hope in his death as the expiring 
saint ; and certainly he has more reason to 
appreciate that hope, if his punishment is 
all this side of death, and all is happiness 
beyond. The peculiar phraseology of the 
text shows that the sinner's guilt will cleave 
to him in a future state. The wicked is 
driven away in his wickedness, not driven 
away from, it : hence, his wickedness goes 

1 with him into the future world. 



282 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book ii. 



Ezek. xviii. 26 : "When the righteous 
man turneth away from his righteousness 
and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them, 
for his iniquity that he hath done shall he 
die." 

This text teaches that men will possess 
the same moral character in a future state 
with which they leave this ; but it proves 
directly, that moral death will exist after 
the death of the body. Mark the peculiar 
language : the apostate is here said, first, to 
die in his iniquity, and then to die for it. 
This clearly proves that he who dies a sin- 
ner, will be a sinner in the future state, and 
will there experience that death which is 
the wages of sin, (see Rom. vi. 23.) That 
men will possess the same moral character 
in a future state, with which they leave this, 
farther appears from the fact that sin at- 
taches itself to the soul. If sin attached 
itself to the body only, it might be contend- 
ed that it dies with the body ; but having 
its seat in the soul, it will live with it when 
the body dies. 

Dan. xii. 2 : " And many of them that 
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, 
some to everlasting life, and some to shame 
and everlasting contempt." 

This text clearly recognizes a distinction 
in the moral character of men beyond the 
grave ; and though it speaks more directly 
of the resurrection of the body, as the con- 
scious existence of the soul is admitted, its 
moral character must remain the same dur- 
ing the intermediate state, in its sin and 
guilt, to join the body on the shore of the 
resurrection world in shame and everlasting 
contempt. Such is the light reflected from 
the pages of the Old Testament, on the con- 
dition of sinners after death. If the reader 
will now direct his attention to the New 
Testament, he will find the subject brought 
more fully to view, A few clear texts will 
settle the question. 

Matt. X. 28 : •' And fear not them which 
kill the body, but are not able to kill the 
soul : but rather fear him which is able to 
destroy both soul and body in hell." 

Luke xii. 4, 5 : " And I say unto you, my 



friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the 
body, and after that have no more that they 
can do. But I will forewarn you whom you 
shall fear : Fear him which, after he hath 
killed, hath power to cast into hell ; yea, I 
say unto you, Fear him." 

These texts leave no room to cavil or to 
doubt, for here is a punishment set forth as 
occurring after the death of the body. The 
original word here rendered hell, is gehenna, 
which refers to the final place of punish- 
ment after the judgment, but this does not 
weaken the proof of suffering, during the 
intermediate state, as it involves the contin- 
ued sin and guilt of the soul, from deatli to 
the time of the judgment, as its conscious ex- 
istence is admitted. 

Luke xvi. 22, 23 : " And it came to pass 
that the beggar died, and was carried by 
the angels into Abraham's bosom : the rich 
man also died, and was buried ; and in hell 
he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and 
S3eth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his 
bosom." 

This appears to be a simple statement of 
what actually took place, and if it be viewed 
in this point of light, it proves that sinners 
enter immediately upon a state of suffering 
when they die. In view of the clearness 
of the proof, if it be understood as a literal 
narrative, desperate efforts have been made 
to explain it away by calling it a parable. 
But it is not necessary to maintain the lite- 
rality, to derive all the proof possible in 
support of punishment after death. 

The object is clearly to teach men the 
danger of perdition, and if it be a parable, 
it must be what may take place. A para- 
ble is founded upon something real, which 
is understood, and which is employed be- 
cause it is understood, to illustrate and ex- 
plain some other subject, which is not so 
well understood as the subject of the para- 
ble. If it were not so, parables would serve 
to obscure, rather than to illustrate subjects. 
This view shows that if the case of the rich 
man be a parable, hell must have a real ex- 
istence as a place of torment, and must have 
been understood by the Jews. Let this po- 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



283 



sition be tested by an appeal to a few of the 
other parables of our Lord. The parable 
of the mustard seed is to the point. Matt, 
xiii. 31. But deny that there is any such 
thing as a mustard plant, and you will ruin 
the parable. The parable of the sower is 
instructive, but if you deny that there is 
any such thing as a literal sowing of seed, 
you ruin the parable. The parable of the 
tares is also instructive, but deny that there 
is any such thing as literal wheat and tares, 
and the parable loses its beauty, force and 
truth. The parable of the leaven hid in 
three measures of meal, well illustrates the 
operation of truth, but if the literal opera- 
tion of leaven in meal is denied, it is ruined. 
The parable of the net cast into the sea is 
a fine one, but if there were no sea and no 
fish, it would be no parable. The parable 
of the marriage supper, and of the prodigal 
son, both have a literal basis. So with the 
rich man and Lazarus, it is ruined as a par- 
able, if there be no hell after death. 

But for the sake of the argument, let it 
be allowed for a moment that it is a parable, 
designed to represent the Jews and Gentiles, 
as some have affirmed. 

1. In this point of light it misrepresents 
the subject instead of illustrating it. It is 
not true that the Gentiles are in the Gospel 
church as a whole, as represented by Laza- 
rus in Abraham's bosom. Nor is it true 
that all the Jews are excluded from the 
Gospel church, as represented by the rich 
man in hell. The Gospel church was not 
organized by rejecting all the Jews, and re- 
ceiving all the Gentiles, but by breaking 
down the middle wall of partition between 
them, and receiving all that believed of both 
Jews and Gentiles. 

It is not true that the Jews are excluded 
from the Gospel church by any impassable 
gulf ; the door of the Gospel church, and 
the door of salvation, is open for them to 
enter when they will. It is not true that 
the Jews have even sought an admission to 
the Gospel church, as represented by the 
rich man pleading with Abraham. But 
how could it illustrate the prospective con- 



dition of the Jews and Gentiles, if there is 
no hell of torment beyond death. There is 
nothing to illustrate by ;• hell, which is not, 
is used to illustrate the case of the Jews and 
Gentiles, which is. That which is not, is 
used to illustrate that which is ; nothing is 
used to illustrate something. Did the Jews 
believe in a hell beyond death, the illustra- 
tion must have confirmed them in that be- 
lief. Did the Jews not believe in the exis- 
tence of such a hell, the illustration must 
have been darker than the subject sought to 
be illustrated. An illustration must be bet- 
ter understood than the subject illustrated, 
that we may apply the knowledge we have 
of it, to the subject, to make that plainer. 
What then is hell in the parable, if the com- 
mon notion of hell is a fiction, that we may 
apply our knowledge of it, to the relation 
and condition of the Jews and Gentiles, in 
order to a better understanding of that sub- 
ject? 

2. As a mere parable it is defective in its 
parts, upon the supposition that there is no 
hell. Suppose we understand the Jews by 
the rich man, and the Gentiles by Lazarus, 
then it may be asked, who are to be under- 
stood by the father's house, to which the 
rich man, that is, the Jews, desired Lazarus, 
that is, the Gentiles, to be sent? Again, it 
may be inquired, who are represented by 
the five brethren, for whom the rich man, 
that is, the Jews, manifest so much solici- 
tude, lest they should come to the same con- 
dition in which the Jews are involved. It 
must appear from the above remarks, that 
the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus, 
is based upon the fact that there is a hell 
of misery, into which wicked men enter 
Avhen they die, and that to deny the exis- 
tence of such a place, is to rob the remarks 
of Christ of all force and all sense. 

II. All professed believers in the Chris- 
tian Eeligion, who deny that there is any 
suffering after death, hold principles, which, 
if carried out, must prove the very doctrine 
they deny. Indeed, their denial is based 
upon an assumption, which, if it were true, 
would involve the very thing they deny, 



284 



THE FUTUKE STATE. 



[book !!• 



namely, that sin will be punished after death. 
They contend that the object of all divine 
punishment, is to reform the sufferer. This 
appears to be a fundamental principle in 
their theory ; it is advanced by every wri- 
ter, and reiterated by every pulpit declaimer 
on the subject. If all divine punishment 
be designed to reform the sufferer, as Uni- 
versalists contend, one of three consequen- 
ces must follow, viz : every sinner must be 
reformed in this life, or punishment must 
fail to effect the reformation of the sinner, 
for which it is designed, or else it must be 
continued in a future state, until it effect 
there, what it fails to accomplish in this 
world. 

1. All sinners are not reformed in this 
life, as Scripture and matter of fact abun- 
dantly declare. It is said Prov. xiv. 32 : 
" The wicked is driven away in his wicked- 
ness, but the righteous hath hope in his 
death." If then the wicked are driven away 
in their wickedness, in opposition to the 
hopeful death of the righteous, it is clear 
that they are not reformed and saved from 
their sins before death. Indeed, it cannot 
be denied that some men sin on life's most 
extended verge, and blaspheme witli their 
last breath ; it is certain, therefore, that all 
men are not reformed in this life. 

2. Will it be said that punishment fails 
to effect its designed object, in those cases in 
which men are not reformed in this life ? 
The answer is, such a concession must be 
fatal to the argument drawn from the cor- 
rective design of punishment ; for what does 
it avail to contend that punishment is de- 
signed to reform the sinner, if it be admit- 
ted, at the same time, that it may fail to 
produce the designed effect ? If it be ad- 
mitted that God does inflict punishment, 
which does not reform the sufferer, the fact 
that endless punishment cannot reform its 
subjects, forms no argument against it. Not 
only so, but if it be contended that punish- 
ment be designed to reform the sinner, and 
admitted at the same time,' that it may fail 
to effect this design, it must follow that the 
means which God employs to reform sin- 



ners fail of their object. Now, if sinners 
can and do resist and render ineffectual the 
means which God employs to bring them to 
repentance and salvation, the final salvation 
of all men, to say the least, must be doubt- 
ful, and the conclusion is more than proba- 
ble, that there will be sin and punishment 
after death. 

3. As the object of denying all punish- 
ment after death, is to establish the doctrine 
of the final salvation of all men, and as 
those who deny future punishment, contend 
that all punishment is designed to reform 
the sinner, and as it is fatal to their cause 
to admit that it may fail in its design, they 
must allow that it will be continued in a 
future state, since it is manifest that it does 
not effect its intended object in this life. 
There is no way to escape the force of this 
conclusion. There are three alternatives 
between which they may choose, viz : they 
may admit that all punishment is not de- 
signed to reform the sufferer, or they may 
hold on to the corrective design of punish- 
ment, and admit that it sometimes fails to 
effect its intended object ; or they may con- 
tend that it will effect the reformation of the 
sinner, and admit that for this purpose it 
will be continued in a future state. But as 
it would be fatal for them to admit either 
of the two former propositions, they must 
accept of the latter, and admit the doctrine 
of punishment after death. 

III. There are some sins which will not 
admit of punishment in this life. In all 
cases where life is ended in sin, the subject 
cannot receive all the punishment he de- 
serves before death, and therefore must be 
punished in a future state. 

When we look into this world of wicked- 
ness and death, we see one man die in a 
drunken fit ; another fall by the hand of 
his intended victim whom he was about to 
murder and rob — falling with the instru- 
ment of death in his hand, and murder in 
his heart ; another has his head shot off in 
the field of battle ; another is struck dead 
by lightning from the clouds, when in the 
act of blaspheming the name of God ; and 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



285 



anotlier perishes by his own hand — blowing 
out his own brains, and sending his soul into 
the future world, " as sudden as the spark 
from the smitten steel," stained with his own 
blood. Nothing can be more clear, than 
that sinners, dying under the above circum- 
stances, cannot receive their full punishment 
in this world. If sinners are punished all 
they deserve in this life, under these circum- 
stances, at what time do they receive it, and 
in what does it consist ? Is it said that it 
is inflicted prior to the commission of the 
crime ? The notion is too absurd to be in- 
dulged for a moment. 

1.. If sin be punished before it is commit- 
ted, then the innocent receive the punish- 
ment : before sin is committed man is inno- 
cent ; he is then punished, if the punish' 
ment is prior to the sin for which it is in 
flicted ; after that he commits sin ; he is 
then guilty and receives no punishment on 
the above principle. 

2. If sin be punished before it is commit- 
ted, it must follow that sinners do not ren 
der themselves liable to punishment, by the 
commission of their crimes. On this prin- 
ciple, when a man has an opportunity to 
commit sin, and is disposed to do it, he may 
take it for granted that the punishment is 
past and commit the act with impunity. 

Will it then be said that sin is punished 
at the time it is committed ? This would 
imply that sin deserves no more punishment 
than is endured while the sinner is engaged 
in the crime, which in some of the above 
supposed cases can be but a moment. 

1. To say that sin receives its punish- 
ment at the time of its commission, so that 
it is fully punished by the time the act is 
finished, is to encourage sin. Sin is often 
committed with no other object than the 
gratification which the act itself affords ; 
now, if the punishment is received at the 
same time, it must be overbalanced by the 
gratification, making the pleasure of sin 
greater than its punishment ; thus, the scale 
must preponderate in favor of sin. 

2. The above notion is contradicted by 
plain matter of fact. Bid Cain receive all 



the punishment his wicked murder deserved 
while he was slaying his righteous brother ; 
or was he punished after the act was com- 
mitted ? The same inquiry might be made 
of every case of divine punishment recorded 
in the Bible. The same inquiry also may 
be made of every penalty inflicted by courts 
of justice, at the present day. If theft be 
punished all it deserves while the thief is in 
the act of stealing, imprisonment for the 
same act must be over and above justice. 

But if sin receives all its punishment 
while the sinner is committing the act, in 
what does the punishment of sin consist ? 
Suppose a man takes his own life by blow- 
ing out his own brains in an instant, or is 
shot dead in the act of attempting to kill 
another, does his punishment consist in the 
pain he endures ? This cannot be. 

(1.) This would make the punishment of 
murder consist in the pang of an instant, of 
which we can scarcely have any perception. 
Murder, in such case, is punished with less 
smart than good parents often inflict on their 
children for a much less offence. 

(2.) The pain of dying in such case can- 
not be greater than men generally endure 
in death, whether they save life or take it ; 
for all must die, and generally suffer more 
than the man whose existence is ended in an 
instant as above supposed. 

(3.) To suppose that the punishment of 
suicide consists in the pain of dying, would 
be to suppose that the man punishes himself 
for his own sin, and that the act which con- 
stitutes the sin, and the act which inflicts 
the punishment are the same. From this, 
one of two fatal consequences must follow, 
viz : as the same act produces both the sin 
and the punishment, it must follow that God 
is the author of the sin, or else that he is 
not the author of the punishment. Now, if 
it be said that God is the author of both 
the sin and the punishment, then he pun- 
ishes for that of which he is the author ; 
and if it be said that God is not the author 
of the punishment, then the sin is not pun- 
ished by God, and the pain of dying is proved 
not to be the punishment of suicide. 



286 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



Will it be said that the punishment of 
suicide, or the punishment of a man who is 
shot dead in an attempt to murder another, 
consists in tlie loss of life ? If so, then, 

1. The loss of life cannot be greater to 
the highway robber, or to the poor wretch, 
who is so tired of life as to commit suicide, 
than it was to righteous Abel or St. Ste- 
phen. The loss of life must be as great to 
the man who loses it in attempting to save 
the Ufe of another, as it is to the man who 
loses it in an attempt to kill another. 

2. On the supposition that there is no 
punishment after death, the loss of life, is 
in fact, no loss, but a great gain, just in 
proportion as heaven is to be preferred to 
earth ! 

3. To suppose that the punishment of 
suicide consists in the loss of life, confounds 
sin with its punishment, and destroys all 
distinction between them. Suppose a man 
to hang himself, in what does the sin consist ? 
It must be acknowledged that the sin con- 
sists in the sacrifice of life, while it is said 
that the punishment consists in the loss of 
life, which amounts to the same thing: a 
man sins by hanging himself, and he is pun- 
ished for it by hanging ; or a man is guilty 
for the loss of life, and he is punished by the 
loss of life, for which he is guilty. It must 
be clear that this makes sin and its pun- 
ishment the same ; the sin consists in the 
punishment and the punishment consists in 
the sin. Now. if this be granted, there are 
some sins for which many persons would 
esteem it a privilege to be punished. 

It must appear conclusive from the above 
reasoning, that there are many sins which 
are not, and which cannot be " punished in 
this life ; they will therefore be punished in 
a future state. 

IV. To suppose that sin receives its full 
punishment in this world, must defeat every 
object of punishment which can be consid- 
ered worthy the divine administration. If 
the full penalty of the law be inflicted, and 
endured by the offender in this life, it cannot 
be known what the punishment of sin is, 
how much of it the transs'ressor must en- 



dure, on whom the weight of the divine penal- 
ty falls, nor for what purpose it is inflicted. 
1. If sinners are punished in this life all 
their sins deserve, it cannot be known in 
what their punishment consists. Do differ- 
ent sins receive the same punishment, in 
kind ? Or are profane swearers punished 
in one way and liars in another ? Do the 
same acts of transgression always receive 
the same punishment, in kind, or are the 
violations of the same command punished 
sometimes in one way and sometimes in 
another ? There is no suffering which sin- 
ners endure in this life, that we can recog- 
nize as the full penalty of the law. The 
punishment cannot consist in the misfor- 
tunes, sufferings, and death common to hu- 
man beings ; for we see good men suffer and 
die as well as bad men. The punishment of 
sin cannot consist in the penalties inflicted 
by the laws of the land ; for the laws en- 
acted by men are sometimes unjust and op- 
pressive, punishing virtue and rewarding 
vice. Different governments annex different 
penalties to the same prohibition, and all 
often change, while many sins are beyond 
the reach of tlie best civil authorities. Nor 
can the punishment of sin consist in mental 
anguish, or remorse of conscience. If the 
punishment of sin consisted in guilt of con- 
science, it would appear that the moral sen- 
sibility of the soul must be waked up in 
proportion to its progress in sin and guilt, 
which is not the case. Progress in sin is 
attended with greater and greater insensi- 
biHty, until every moral feeling of the soul 
is so blunted that the sinner can sport in the 
midst of those scenes of enormity, which 
would have shocked his soul and struck hira 
dumb in the commencement of his vicious 
career. The man of general good life 
and upright intentions, feels much more dis- 
tress at the slightest deviation from moral 
rectitude than the most abandoned libertine 
careering in his licentious course, who has 
given himself up to work all manner of filthi- 
ucss with greediness. The first deviation from 
probity is attended by a keen sense of guilt ; 
conscience is on the alert. On a second of- 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



28T 



fence conscience feels less, and so, until she 
is lulled to sleep, and sin is punished with 
little or no remorse. With this view 
the testimony of Scripture accords. We 
read of some who have " their conscience 
scared as with a hot iron." 1 Tim. iv 2. 
We read of others, " who being past feeling, 
have given themselves over unto lascivious - 
ness to work all manner of uncleanness with 
greediness." Eph iv. 19. 

2. On the supposition that the sinner re- 
ceives his full punishment in this life, it 
cannot be known how great, or how small 
an evil the punishment of sin is. We may 
tell sinners that for their transgression they 
must be punished, and that except they 
repent they will perish, but how much they 
must suffer we cannot inform them ; we 
cannot threaten them with an hour's pun- 
ishment, for the worst of crimes ; for we 
know not that they will live an hour. The 
law of God does not inform its subjects how 
much they must suffer if they incur its pen- 
alty, if there is no punishment after death. 
The sinner knows he cannot suffer long, 
but does not know that he shall suffer 
another day or hour ; for the law, with all 
its threatened penalties, does not give as- 
surance that we shall survive that length 
of time ; therefore God's law does not posi- 
tively threaten the sinner with an hour's 
punishment, unless it threatens punish- 
ment after death. How long the sinner 
must suffer for his sin is therefore as uncer- 
tain as the day of his death ; and more so, 
for while it is asserted that punishment 
shall not exist after death, it is not contend- 
ed that the sinner will certainly be punished 
up to that period. 

3. It cannot be known who suffer for 
sin, if its punishment be all endured in this 
life. We cannot know who are the sub- 
jects of divine punishment, by the sins of 
which those around us are guilty ; for some 
commit their deeds in darkness, and others 
conceal the heart of a hypocrite under an 
external appearance of sanctity. Nor can 
we discover who are the objects of divine 
punishment by the suffering we see men en- 



dure, for there is no visible suffering en- 
dured by the wicked to which the righte- 
ous are not exposed, and sometimes actu- 
ally endure. It is clear then that we cannot 
know in this world who suffer for their sins. 

4. If sin receives its full punishment in 
this world, we can see no important object 
to be secured by it ; no object worthy of 
the divine administration. It cannot be to 
make an exhibition of the divine justice, 
nor to vindicate the divine law and govern- 
ment ; for no exhibition is made of the 
punishment inflicted, nor of the subjects on 
whom it falls. It cannot be to make the 
sufferer an example to others ; for neither 
the sufferers nor the punishment they en- 
dure is known as above stated. Nor can 
punishment be designed to reclaim the 
sufferer if it be confined to this world ; for 
if there is no punishment after death, all 
will, of necessity, be reformed when they 
die ; hence, if reformation be the end of 
punishment, such reformation must be con- 
fined to this life. To say men are punished 
in this life to reform them after death, would 
be to admit that they will be sinners in a 
future state, and consequently subject to 
punishment. If punishment, then, is de- 
signed to reform the sinner, it must reform 
him in this world, or be continued after 
death, or fail of its design, as was showa in 
a preceding argument. Now, it is notori- 
ous, that all sinners are not reformed in 
this life ; some sin and blaspheme with 
their last breath. This leaves no motive to 
punish the sinner for sins committed just as 
he is leaving the world ; for, as the reforma- 
tion which punishment is designed to effect 
has exclusive reference to this life, it can be 
of little consequence just as the sinner is 
entering eternity. To punish a dying sin- 
ner to reform him, with exclusive reference 
to this world, when in a week, a day or an 
hour, he will certainly be conveyed by 
death, where his sin cannot follow him, and 
where he will need no reform, appears un- 
worthy of the divine administration. 

That punishment is not designed to re- 
form, and that it does not result in reforma- 



288 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



tion, on the supposition that it is confined 
to this life, is farther evident from the fact, 
that sinners themselves do not always know 
when they are punished, or that they are 
punished at all for sin in this life. We are 
liable to suffering here whether we sin or 
not ; and who can tell which of his trials 
and sufferings are to punish him for his 
sins, and which are his natural inheritance 
as a citizen of this world of sorrow ? Not 
only so, but some have lived and died in a 
belief that God never punishes sin, in this 
world, or in the world to come. Such per 
sons are not only without reformation by 
their punishment, but on the supposition 
that sin is fully punished in this world, they 
receive the whole penalty of Jehovah's law, 
without knowing that they are punished for 
sin. 

It is clear then, if sinners are punished in 
this life all they deserve, their punishment 
cannot be designed to display the divine 
justice, nor to vindicate the divine govern- 
ment and authority. It cannot be to make 
the punished an example to others, nor can 
it be to reform the sufferer ; to which it 
may be added, therefore it can reflect no 
glory upon the divine attributes, nor upon 
the divine administration. It must there- 
fore follow that sinners go unpunished, or 
endure a punishment which can answer no 
important end to the punished, to others, 
nor to the divine government, or else they 
must be punished in a future state ; and the 
latter appears most consistent. 

Y. It does not appear that wicked men 
suffer more in this life than many of the 
most pious. 

It has been shown in a preceding argu- 
ment that it cannot be known in what the 
punishment of sin consists, nor on whom it 
is inflicted, if it be confined to this world. 
This certainly goes far towards proving 
that the wicked do not suffer more in this 
life, than those whom the Scriptures de- 
nominate righteous ; for if we cannot know 
what, and how much punishment the sinner 
endures in this life, it must be difficult to 
prove that he suffers more than the good 



man, around whom wants and sorrows 
often gather, and storms of adversity and 
persecution howl. But the argument need 
not rest on a supposed impossibility of 
proving that sinners suffer more in this 
life than the righteous, for it is easy to 
prove that they do not. The righteous 
have sometimes* endured all that men are 
capable of suffering in the flesh. They 
have endured cold and hunger, nakedness, 
famine, prisons, racks, fire, and sword. 
Many devoted Christians have closed their 
eyes amid the hellish tortures of an inquisi- 
tion. Now what more than all these have 
wicked men suffered? Some, it is true, 
have endured the same or similar trials ; 
but many others who have been very wick- 
ed, have endured none of them, but have 
walked through life in paths perpetually 
cheered by the sunshine of prosperity. 

Should it be said that sinners suffer from a 
guilty conscience, what amounts to more 
than all the evils which the righteous some- 
times endure ? It may be replied, 

1. That is what can never be proved. 

2. It is what the sinner will not himself 
admit. What sinner will say that he suf- 
fers more than would equal the afflictions of 
Job, the trials of Jeremiah, or the labors 
and sufferings of Paul ? 

3. It is what no man of sober thought 
will believe. Who will believe that the 
wicked men of their acquaintance, who are 
surrounded by all the good things of this 
world, and appear sportfully merry, actually 
suffer more than the devoted Christian, 
whose sighs escape from his dungeon 
through iron grates, or whose groans tell 
the deadly work of the instrument of tor- 
ture ? If it be said that the righteous have 
the support of religion amid all these trials, 
it is granted ; but it is likewise affirmed, 

1. The wicked have many blessings, such 
as health, peacC; and plenty, of which many 
of the godly have not been permitted to 
taste ; and these mercies must serve much 
to mitigate their sorrow, admitting that 
they are punished here. 

2. The righteous, amid all the supports 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



289 



which religion affords, endure much mental 
distress to which the ungodly are strangers ; 
the best men often sorrow and weep, while 
wicked men rejoice. Hear the prophet ex- 
claim, " that my head were waters, and 
mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might 
weep day and night." Here an apostle de- 
clare, " I have great heaviness and contin- 
ual sorrow in my heart." Consider that 
these are exercises which sinners never feel, 
and it will appear that wicked men do not 
always suffer more in this life than good 
men. Indeed, if the tears of both were 
numbered, no doubt it would appear that 
the man of God sheds the most. This ar- 
gument may be thus stated : If sinners are 
punished in this life all their sins deserve, 
they must suffer more than the righteous. 
But sinners do not always suffer more in 
this life than the righteous, therefore they 
are not punished in this life all their sins 
deserve, and consequently must be pun- 
ished in a future state. 

VI. If there is no punishment aftei 
death, it must follow that the piety of the 
pious, and the wickedness of the wicked 
can effect them only in this life ; all the 
consequences of virtue and vice, here must 
cease at death. To say that the virtue of 
good men, or the vice of bad men, will 
affect them after death, would be to admit 
the doctrine of future punishment. Taking 
this view . of the subject, it is obvious that 
to deny future punishment is to dispossess 
religion, at least, of most of its motive in 
fluence with which it addresses itself to the 
better interests of mankind. 

1. The pious have no object to secure by 
their fidelity in religion, only what they en- 
joy in this life. Suppose then that proph- 
ets, apostles, confessors and martyrs, knew 
that their profession of the truth which 
brought upon them the contempt of the 
world, the frown of kings, and prepared the 
rack to torture them, and the fiery fagot to 
burn them ; suppose that they knew the 
benefits of their profession would last no 
longer than the sufferings which they en- 
dured for its sake, and can any one believe 
19 



that they would have braved all the storm 
of persecution that fell upon them with such 
undying fortitude as marked their career I 
Would Moses have chosen to suffer affliction 
with the people of God on earth, if he had 
believed that he could enjoy the splendor of 
the Egyptian throne and heaven too? 
Would Paul have endured what he did for 
the sake of the Gospel, had he believed that 
himself and all others would be just as well 
off at death without the Gospel as with it ? 
Would he have warned every one, night 
and day, with tears, if he had known that 
all distinction between the righteous and 
the wicked would cease at death? It is 
clear then that the course pursued by the 
prophets, apostles, and fathers, was such as 
would not have resulted from a belief that 
the conduct of the present life has nothing 
to do with our future destiny. Had they 
believed that their perseverance in the truth 
would not benefit them after death, their 
blood would never have stained the ground, 
nor would Nero's garden have been lighted 
with their funeral piles. If it be said that 
religion yields a present comfort to the be- 
liever sufficient to support him under all 
these trials, the appeal is made to the Chris- 
tian world, and it is asked what Christian 
there is who will say that he enjoys comfort 
enough in religion, aside from any hope or 
fear respecting a future state, to support 
him in the dungeon, loaded with chains, or 
to carry him to the stake ? There is com- 
fort in religion, and joy in believing, but 
take away that joy which springs from a 
hope that takes hold on a future reward, 
and remove that faith which connects pres- 
ent fidelity with future happiness, and what 
remains will be dissipated at the first mo- 
tion of the wheel, or at the first touch of 
the fiery fagot. 

2. The wicked have nothing to fear in 
consequence of their sins, only what befalls 
them in this life. This certainly leaves sin- 
ners with as little to fear, in view of their 
wickedness, as the righteous have to hope 
for in consequence of their piety. 

Some men who are notoriously wicked pass 



290 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



through life as smoothly as the devoted 
Christian, or the zealous minister, who like 
Paul, warns all, night and day, with tears. 
If it be said that sinners suffer some unseen 
punishment, which is designed to operate as 
a restraint upon them to deter them from 
transgression, the absurdity of such a hypo- 
thesis has already been shown, in addition 
to which an appeal may be taken to the sin- 
ner, by asking him what he has suffered as 
a punishment for sin, calculated to restrain 
him in future ? It must be seen then that 
to deny future punishment, is to remove 
all the terror from the divine law, by nulli- 
fying its threatened penalty, and leave the 
sinner to act without fear of punishment. 
Is it said that those who deny punishment 
after death, assert, that if men sin they must 
be punished for it in this life, and that there 
is no possibility of escaping it by repentance 
and faith ? It is clear that sinners have no 
reason much to fear a mundane hell ; for 
that sentiment which denies a future hell, 
teaches them that they have been in hell 
ever since they began to sin ; and having 
found it supportable, and in general quite 
• comfortable, they can have but little to fear 
for the future. 

There are other arguments which might 
be urged in proof of the position that sin- 
iners will suffer after death for sins com- 
mitted in this life, but they are so in- 
volved in other points discussed in this 
' chapter, as to render it unnecessary to press 
them in this place. 



SECTION V. 

The Resurrection. 

The doctrine of the resurrection of the 
human body, is exclasively a matter of rev- 
elation. When once we have got the con- 
ception, and the belief of the resurrection of 
the dead, we may find analogies in nature 
to illustrate the subject, and may reason 
concerning it, but the first idea must come 
from God by revelation, or be suggested by 
seeing dead people rise up. The thought 



of a general resurrection lies beyond the 
power of human reason to conceive or de- 
monstrate, and our faith in it must rest upon 
the authority of the word of God, or it must 
fall. So, as reason cannot demonstrate the 
truth that tljere will be a resurrection, 
neither can it refute it, and none of its philo- 
sophical difficulties and objections can be 
admitted as proving anything against what 
is clearly set forth in the Scriptures concern- 
ing the resurrection of the human body. 
What, then, does the word of God teach on 
the subject ? 

I. The Scriptures teach that there will 
be a resurrection of all the dead. It is not 
necessary to spread an argument over several 
pages to prove that the saints and prophets 
of the Old Testament had some light on the 
subject of the resurrection. It is believed 
that point might be proved, yet the New 
Testament is so clear that the end may be 
gained without that labor. 

There were among the Jews a sect called 
Sadducees, who denied that there is to be 
any resurrection, neither did they believe in 
angels or spirits. In this they differed from 
the Pharisees and the rest of the Jews. 
These Sadducees came to Christ with their 
scepticism, and he contradicted and refuted 
them. This conversation is recorded by 
Matthew, Mark and Luke. It will be suffi- 
cient to quote one of the conversations. 

Matt. xxii. 23-32 : " The same day came 
to him the Sadducees, which say that tliere 
is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, 
Master, Moses said. If a man die, having no 
children, his brother shall marry his wife, 
and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there 
were with us seven brethren : and the first, 
when he had married a wife, deceased, and, 
having no issue, left his wife unto his broth- 
er : Likewise the second also, and the third, 
unto the seventh. And last of all, the wo- 
man died also. Therefore, in the resurrec- 
tion, whose wife shall she be of the seven ? 
for they all had her. Jesus answered and 
said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the 
Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in 
the resurrection they neither marry, nor are 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE.. 



291 



given in marriage, but are as the angels of 
God in heaven. But as touching the re- 
surrection of the dead, have ye not read that 
which was spoken unto you by Grod, saying, 
I am the God of Abraham, and the God of 
Isaac, and tlie God of Jacab ? God is not 
the God of the dead, but of the living." 

On this important passage it may be re- 
marked, 

1. There can be no mistake in regard to 
the question ; the issue was clearly the resur- 
rection of the dead. This is made clear by 
the Evangelist, in stating, that the Saddu- 
cees deny the resurrection. It is further 
evident by their own statement of the ques- 
tion. It regarded the relation of seven 
brothers to one woman, and they state dis- 
tinctly that the brothers all died, and that the 
woman also died, and then, upon this state of 
things, they base their question. The ques- 
tion, therefore, must have regarded a state of 
things beyond death and the grave. By the 
resurrection, they must have meant life in 
some form after death. They appear to have 
assumed that the same relations must exist in 
the future state that exist in this, if there be 
such a state, and hence, that if there be a re- 
surrection of the dead, the one woman would 
have seven husbands in the future state, and 
hence, that the doctrine of the resurrection 
involved an insurmountable absurdity. 

2. Christ answered their question by af- 
firming, virtually, that the woman would be 
the wife of neither of the seven brothers ; 
that the relation does not exist in the resur- 
rection state, because they are like the an- 
gels, spiritual and immortal. Thus he re- 
moved their entire objection to the doctrine 
of the resurrection. 

3. Christ asserted directly, that they were 
in errorj and that their error was the result 
of not knowing the power of God and the 
Scriptures. We here have the authority of 
Christ's word, that it is an error to deny the 
doctrine of the resurrection. 

4. Christ asserts the truth of the doctrine 
of the resurrection, by advancing an unan- 
swerable argument in its support. For a 
more extended comment upon this text, the 



reader is referred to the argument on the 
immortality of the soul, where it is more 
fully explained. 

The text as here presented, is entirely 
conclusive, in proof of the fact that there 
will be a resurrection of the dead. 

It has been shown above that Christ pro- 
nounced the Sadducees in error, and with 
this fact before his mind, the reader is re- 
quested to consider, Acts xxiii. 6, 8 : *' But 
when Paul perceived that the one part were 
Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried 
out in the council, Men and brethren, I am 
a Pharisee, the Son of a Pharisee : of the 
hope and resurrection of the dead I am 
called in question. For the Sadducees say 
that there is no resurrection, neither angel 
nor spirit : but the Pharisees confess both." 

Here Paul asserts his belief in the resur- 
rection of the dead, as plainly as he could 
have done it. This doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion of the dead, was an inspiring theme with 
Paul ; he preached it in Athens, to the philo- 
sopers. Acts xvii. 18, and gloriously wove 
it into his defence before Agrippa, Acts 
xxvi. 8, and demanded of the king, " why 
should it be thought a thing incredible with 
you that God should raise the dead ?" 

But Paul's master piece on the resurrec- 
tion, is found in his first Epistle to the Co- 
rinthians, chap. XV. jN"o single verse can 
be quoted which will do justice to the sub- 
ject, or to Paul ; the whole chapter must be 
considered to appreciate the effort. He not 
only asserts the doctrine of the resurrection, 
but demonstrates it by a power of argument 
which is only like Paul. 

He declares that " Christ died for our sins 
according to the Scriptures ; And that he 
was buried, and that he rose again the third 
day according to the Scriptures : And that 
he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve : 
After that, he was seen of above five hun- 
dred brethren at once ; of whom the great- 
er part remain unto this present, but some 
are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen 
of James ; then of all the apostles. And 
last of all he was seen of me also, as of one 
born out of due time." 



292 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



After all this demonstration of the resur 
rection of Christ, the Apostle adds, " Now if 
Christ be preached that he rose from the 
dead, how say some among you that there is 
no resurrection of the dead ? But if there be 
no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ 
not risen : And if Christ be not risen, then 
is our preaching vain, and your faith is also 
vain. Yea, and we are found false witness- 
es of God ; because we have testified of God 
that he raised up Christ : whom he raised 
not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For 
if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised : 
And if Clirist be not raised, your faith is 
vain ; ye are yet in your sins." 

After this and the statement of some ad- 
ditional consequences which would follow, if 
the resurrection of Christ be denied, Paul 
re-affirms that fact thus : " But now is Christ 
risen from the dead, and become the first- 
fruits of them that slept. For since by man 
came death, by man came also the resurrec- 
tion of the dead. For as in Adam all die, 
even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 

Paul next answers objections to his doc- 
trine, and shows with what body the dead 
will be raised. He then connects the resur- 
rection of the dead with the change of those 
who shall be alive on the earth when the 
resurrection shall take place, and shows how 
it will be effected, as follows : 

" Behold, I show you a mystery : "We 
shall not all sleep, but we shall all be 
changed in a moment, in the twinkling of 
an eye, at the last trump : for the trumpet 
shall sound, and the dead shall be raised in- 
corruptible, and we shall be changed. For 
this corruptible must put on incorruption, 
and this mortal must put on immortality." 

Paul then concludes the whole with the 
song which will be sung on the immortal 
side of the grave, when these things shall be 
accomplished. 

"So when this corruptible shall have put 
on incorruption, and this mortal shall have 
put on immortality, then shall be brought 
to pass the saying that is written, Death is 
swallowed up in victory. death, where 
is thy sting ? grave, where is thy victory?" 



It must appear that no further proof need 
be adduced, to satisfy those who have any 
confidence in the inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures, and especially in the inspiration of 
St. Paul. But so generally was the doc- 
trine of the resurrection believed, and so 
important was it regarded by the ancient 
people of God, that Paul affirms of the mar- 
tyrs, that they " were tortured, not accept- 
ing deliverance, that they might obtain a 
better resurrection." Heb. xi. 35. 

II. The Scriptures teach that it will be 
a resurrection of the same body, though 
greatly changed, spiritualized, and glorified* 

1. It is perfectly certain that in the case 
of Christ's resurrection, the same body that 
died on the cross, and that was laid in the 
tomb, was raised again. It is certain from 
the repeated declarations that he did not 
see corruption. It is also certain from the 
fact, that the body with which he appeared to 
his disciples, bore the marks of the nails and 
of the soldier's spear. Jesus said to them, to 
quiet their fears, Luke xxiv. 39, 40 : " Be- 
hold, my hands and my feet, that it is I my- 
self : handle me, and see ; for a spirit hath 
not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 
And when he had thus spoken, he showed 
them his hands and his feet." 

But John says, " he showed unto them 
his hands and his side." Chap. xx. 20. At 
this meeting Thomas was not present, and 
the following is the record in regard to it. 

Yerses 24-27 : " But Thomas, one of the 
twelve, called Didymus, was not wath them 
when Jesus came. The other disciples 
therefore said unto him, We have seen the 
Lord. But he said unto them. Except I 
shall see in his hands the print of the nails, 
and put my finger into the print of the nails, 
and thrust my hand into his side, I will not 
believe. And after eight days again his dis- 
ciples were within, and Thomas with them. 
Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and 
stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto 
you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach 
hither thy finger, and behold my hands ; 
and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into 
my side : and be not faithless, but believing." 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



293 



After consulting this record, it is not pos- 
sible that those who have full confidence in 
its correctness, can doubt that the same 
body was raised, which was nailed to the 
cross, and which was laid in the tomb. But 
what further confirms the same truth, is the 
fact, that was it not the real body of Christ 
with which he appeared, it was never ac- 
counted for, and no one could ever tell what 
become of it. It was not in the tomb, for 
all the witnesses agree that it was not found 
there. The disciples had not got it, as the 
whole account shows. Moreover, for them 
to have concealed it, would have been to 
have practiced deception, under the circum- 
stances, of which they were incapable. The 
Jews did not have the body, for if it had 
been in their possession, they would have 
produced it, and have saved themselves the 
necessity of inventing the lie that his disci- 
ples stole him away, and saved the money 
with which they hired the soldiers to re- 
port their absurd falsehood. 

It is certain then that the same body of 
Christ was raised, w^iich died and was bu- 
ried. Now, the resurrection of Christ is 
affirmed, not only as a proof of a general 
resurrection, but is presented as a pattern 
after which the saints shall be raised. 

Phil. iii. 21 : " Who shall change our 
vile body, that it may be fashioned like 
unto his glorious body, according to the 
working, whereby he is able to subdue all 
things unto himself." 

2. The Scriptures most clearly affirm the 
resurrection of the same body that dies. 

John V. 28 : " All that are in their graves 
shall come forth." 

The soul is not in the grave, and there is 
nothing in the grave but the body, nothing 
but the body that was put there, and if 
that comes forth, as the text affirms, it is 
a resurrection of the same body. 

Eom. viii. 23 : " Even we ourselves 
groan within ourselves, waiting for the 
adoption, to wit, the redemption of our 
bodies." 

But if the same body is not raised up, 
there will be no redemption of our bodies. 



Verse 11 : " He that raised up Christ 
from the dead, shall also quicken your mor- 
tal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in 
you." 

Paul says of the body, 1 Cor. xv. 42, 43, 
4ti : " It is sown in corruption, it is raised 
in incorruption ; it is sown in dishonor, it 
is raised in glory ; it is sown in weakness, 
it is raised in power ; it is sow^n a natural 
body, it is raised a spiritual body." 

It is clear that Paul here speaks of the 
hrtdy that is sown as the same that is raised. 
The repetition of the pronoun, it, preserves 
the identity of the body which is the sub- 
ject ot remark, so that the affirmation, " it 
is raised," relates to the same body that 
does the affirmation, " it is sown," so that 
in fact, the apostle affirms, that the samo 
body which is sown, is raised. It is now 
settled, that the Scriptures teach that there 
is to be a resurrection of the same body, 
but this must not be regarded as commit- 
ting the author to any peculiar views the 
reader may entertain, in regard to what 
constitutes sameness. This is a distinct 
question, and must be separately consid- 
ered. 

III. The Scriptures teach that very 
great changes are consistent with sameness, 
that even a change from corruptibility to 
incorruptibility, from dishonor to glory, 
from weakness to power, and from natural- 
ity to spirituality, is possible without loss 
of identity. 

If this proposition be well elaborated, 
and carefully considered, it will obviate all 
the philosophical, and metaphysical objec- 
tions which have been urged against the 
doctrine of the resurrection. 

There is one principal objection which 
had better be met at this point. It has 
been often asserted that a resurrection of 
the same body is impossible, on the ground 
that there is a constant change going on in 
the material organism, by which the whole 
body is repeatedly renewed and becomes 
composed of new particles of matter during 
life ; and that after death, the matter may 
become parts of other human bodies. There 



294 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II 



may appear to be two objections embodied 
in one, in the above statement, but a refu- 
tation of one, will be a refutation of both, 
as the argument shall be constructed. 

1. The objection cannot be allowed, be- 
cause it assumes to place human philosophy 
and knowledge, in direct contradiction of 
the most clear teachings of the word of 
God, and grounds its conclusions upon the 
assumption that God cannot do what his 
word declares he will do. As remarked in 
the opening of the subject, the doctrine of 
the resurrCjCtion is not a doctrine of reason, 
but exclusively a doctrine of revelation, 
and hence, human reason and philosophy 
cannot be allowed to disprove or modify it. 
The resurrection of the dead, in any man- 
ner, can be regarded only as one of God's 
most stupendous miracles, and viewed in 
this light, as a work of Omnipotence alone, 
human reason cannot be allowed to pro- 
nounce it impossible, or to modify it, by 
affirming that God cannot effect it in this 
way or in that. Who can say tliat God 
who is Almighty, All-wise, and Omnipo- 
tent, cannot preserve distinct, every parti- 
cle of every human organism, which is es- 
sential to its identity ? If no other reply 
could be offered, this would be sufficient. 
But this is not all that can be said in reply. 
The objection can be shown to be unsound 
and self-destructive. . 

2. The objection assumes that all the 
gross and ever changing particles of mat- 
ter which compose at any time, the mate- 
rial organism, are essential to the identity 
of the body, or to its sameness. If the 
supposed change of particles which com- 
pose the body be not real, the objection 
falls. So if the discarded and scattered 
particles which at different periods compose 
the body, are not essential to the identity 
or sameness of the body, the objection falls. 
But allow both these, and the objection de- 
stroys itself, and he who urges it, contra- 
dicts his own knowledge and his own com- 
mon sense. Every man who is now fifty 
years old, knows that his is the same body 
which it was when he was ten years old, 



and yet, according to the objection, it has 
undergone several entire changes of all its 
gross and changeable particles. His own 
judgment affirms he is the same person that 
he was forty years ago, and yet he affirms 
that there has been several changes of all 
the gross particles that compose his body, 
and therefore it must be absolutely certain 
to himself, that the continued presence of 
the same particles of matter is not essential 
to his identity or sameness. Take an illus- 
tration. Here is a man whose weight is 
two hundred pounds. He is laid upon a 
bed of sickness, and brought near to death. 
He becomes so emaciated that he weighs 
but one hundred pounds, yet he and his 
friends know that he is the same person, 
with the same body, though greatly changed. 
He recovers, and becomes very fleshy, so 
that his weight is two hundred and fifty 
pounds. Now, it is certain one hundred 
and fifty pounds of the gross particles of 
his body, three fifths of the entire bulk, 
were never before attached to him, and yet, 
he and his friends affirm that he is the same 
jjerson, and has the same body. And to 
prove the fact, they appeal to some mark 
or scar which he is known to have had 
even when a child, and finding the same 
mark or scar, his identity is made certain. 
It is perfectly clear then, that the presence 
of the same gross particles of matter are 
not essential to the identity or sameness of 
the body, and the foundation of the objec- 
tion swallows up the conclusion attempted 
to be built upon it. 

3. An inquiry into what constitutes 
identity or sameness of body, is all that re- 
mains in order to finish the objection, and 
clear up this part of the subject. 

Personal identity lies in the mind, and 
not in the presence of the same, gross parti- 
cles of matter, which compose the body. 
Consciousness and memory are the only 
certain proofs of identity, and these are op- 
erations of the mind, and not of the body ; 
and they prove only the identity of mind, 
and not the identity of matter. The mind 
cannot be conscious of the presence of the 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



295 



same particles of matter in the material 
organism. The mind and not the body, is 
really the person, and alone is conscious of 
personal identity, and accountability. The 
mind is not conscious of the identity of the 
body, as its own material organism, but 
only conscious of its ov/n act in recogniz- 
ing the body as the same. The identity of 
the body is not a matter of consciousness 
with the mind, but a matter of recognition. 
The mind recognizes the body as the same, 
and when it does this, the mind is conscious 
of its own act that it does it. This is all 
that consciousness has to do with the iden- 
tity of the body. 

The way is now prepared to ask the 
question, what constitutes identity or same 
ness of body ? It has been seen that it 
does not consist in the presence of the 
same particles of matter' that composed the 
body forty years ago, because the mind 
does recognize the body, as the same body 
without the presence of one of those origi- 
nal particles of matter, if the assumed 
changes of the objection are real. The 
identity of the body depends wholly upon 
the fact that it is the same to the mind ; 
and that is the same body to the mind 
which the mind recognizes as the same. 
Now, as the Scriptures are in general, nei- 
ther philosophical or scientific in their lan- 
guage, but adapted to express the real facts 
which have a practical bearing upon hu- 
man duty and destiny, it is reasonable to 
suppose that when they so repeatedly and 
clearly agsert the resurrection of the same 
body, all they teach is that the body which 
will be raised, will be to the soul the same 
body that it once inhabited, it will be re- 
cognized by the soul as its body. The 
saints will recognize their resurrection 
bodies as theirs ; these are the knees I used 
to bow before God, and these are the hands 
I used to lift up in prayer. A great change 
will be effected, but still it will be to the 
soul the same body. So will it be with 
sinners, they will recognize their bodies in 
the resurrection as their own ; the soul will 
feel, this is the body in which I served sin ; 



these are the feet which were swift to do 
evil, and these are the hands which shed 
innocent blood. Such recognition of the 
body by the soul in the resurrection, is all 
that can now appear to answer any prac- 
tical purpose, and if we allow this to be 
what the Scriptures mean by the resurrec- 
tion of the same body, without mooting the 
question of the presence of the same parti- 
cles of matter, the subject is relieved of all 
difficulty. This view of identity or same- 
ness alone leaves room for those great and 
glorious changes which it is affirmed will 
take place in the bodies of the saints. Our 
bodies are to be changed from corruption 
to incorruption, from dishonor to glory, 
from weakness to power, and from natural 
bodies to spiritual bodies, and when all this 
shall have been wrought by the mighty 
power of God, " whereby he is able even to 
subdue all things unto himself," it must ap- 
pear a matter of very small consequence to 
inquire in regard to the presence of the 
gross and floating particles of matter that 
composed it, when it lived, or when it died ; 
but that the soul should recognize it as its 
body, is a vital point, and this doubtless is 
the fact which the Scriptures teach when 
tliey affirm the resurrection of the same 
body. 

ly. The Scriptures teach that the resur- 
rection is a future event, and that it will 
take place, suddenly and universally, at the 
end of this world. 

This point has been virtually proved while 
proving the fact of a resurrection of the 
same body, but it is proper to notice it as a 
distinct point, and lay before the reader a 
brief outline of the evidence. 

Some have taught that man has some 
sort of a Spiritual resurrection which takes 
place at death or soon after death, and 
hence that the resurrection is a continuous 
work now going on, and that there will be 
no general and sudden resurrection of all 
the dead at any given time. This is cer- 
tainly not the doctrine of the Scriptures. 

1. The Scriptures clearly and forcibly 
represent the resurrection to be a future event. 



296 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



Dan. xii. 2, 3 : " And many of them that 
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, 
some to everlasting life, and some to shame 
and everlasting contempt. And they that 
be vvise shall shine as the brightness of the 
firmament ; and they that turn many to 
righteousness, as the stars forever and 
ever." 

This chapter, no doubt, as a prophecy 
extends to the end of time, it is then, that 
the verse quoted, will be fulfilled. To this 
exposition there is but one objection which 
can be argued, and that is the use of the 
word many ; " many of them that sleep in 
the dust of the earth shall awake." This 
is an objection, but it is a less one than we 
shall meet with, if we attempt any other 
exposition. 

(1.) Many, is used in other texts where it 
is admitted that all are included. 

Matt. XX. 28 : " The Son of man is come 
to give his life a ransom for many." But 
Paul says, 1 Tim, ii. 6, that Christ " gave 
himself a ransom for all !" 

Eom. V. 19 : " For as by one man's dis- 
obedience many w^re made sinners." 

But there is a better reason for the use 
of the word many in the place of all by 
Daniel ; all do not sleep in the dust of the 
earth, and will not at the time, and the pro- 
phet may have had his eye upon the world 
full of living inhabitants who will not be 
raised but changed, and applied the word 
many to all the dead to distinguish them 
from the living. 

(2.) It cannot be explained to mean a 
first resurrection, embracing only the rio-hte- 
ous, for it clearly embraces both classes. 
They awake, " some to everlasting life, and 
some to shame and everlasting contempt." 
^ (3.) It clearly embraces the final retribu- 
tion awarded to both classes. The states 
are both everlasting. 

The concluding verse of the chapter adds 
to the force of this view. The last words 
are addressed to Daniel. 

'* But go thou thy way till the end be : for 
thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the 
end of the days." 



The end of the days no doubt is the end 
of the world ; until then Daniel should rest, 
and then stand in his lot, that is, be raised 
with those which with him should sleep in 
the dust of the earth and wake to everlast- 
ing life. If this exposition be right, it places 
the resurrection of the dead at the cosum- 
mation of this world. 

Luke xiv. 13, 14 : " But when thou makest 
a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, 
the blind : And thou shalt be blessed ; for 
they cannot recompense thee : for thou shalt 
be recompensed at the resurrection of the 
just." 

This places the resurrection in the future, 
and " the f-esurrection of the just," implies 
that all the just will be raised together at 
the same time. Nor does this imply in the 
least degree that the unjust will not be raised 
at the same time. 

John v. 28, 29 : "Marvel not at this : 
for the hour is coming, in the which all that 
are in the graves shall hear his voice, and 
shall come forth ; they that have done good, 
unto the resurrection of life ; and they that 
have done evil, unto the resurrection of dam- 
nation." 

This text is very conclusive. It includes 
all that are in their graves. And if we un- 
derstand the hour not in its restricted sense, 
of the twenty-fourth part of a day, but in 
its general sense of a time or period, still it 
will teach that there is a time coming when 
all that are in the graves shall come forth, 
and the conclusion is that the dead will all 
be raised at one time. This text also in- 
cludes both classes, the good and bad, and 
represents them all as being raised in one 
general resurrection. The representation of 
the text is that in the hour which is coming, 
that is, the time when the resurrection shall 
take place, the saint and the sinner, the 
saved and the lost, will all rise together, the 
one to life, and the other to damnation. In 
this it agrees perfectly with the text quoted 
above from the prophet Daniel. 

Acts xxiv. 14, 15 : "But this I confess 
unto thee, tliat after the way which they 
call heresy, so worship I the God of my fa- 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



29T 



thers, believing all things wliich are written 
in the law and the prophets : And have 
hope toward God, which they themselves 
also allow, that there shall be a resurrection 
of the dead, both of the just and unjust." 

Here is a clear declaration by Paul, that 
he, in common with the Jews, believed in a 
resurrection, both of the just and the un- 
just. It is also implied that this belief was 
based upon what was written in the law and 
the prophets. This resurrection, Paul con- 
templated as a future event ; " there shall 
be a resurrection both of the just and the 
unjust." This expression, '-'shall be," proves 
that Paul regarded the resurrection as en- 
tirely a future event. If it had taken place 
in part, was progressing, and yet to go on, 
he could not have said " there shall be," but 
should have said, there is a resurrection. 

2 Tim. ii. 18 : " Who concerning the 
truth have erred, saying that the resurrec- 
tion is passed already ; and overthrow the 
faith of some." 

This declaration is made concerning Hy- 
raeneus and Philetus. Their declaration 
that the resurrection was past already, musl- 
have related to those only who were already 
dead ; for they could not pretend that the 
resurrection of the living, much less the res- 
urrection of the yet unborn, had already 
taken place. The doctrine they must have 
taught then, was that the dead rise at the 
time of, or soon after death, and hence that 
the resurrection of the then dead was past. 
It is not possible to see how otherwise they 
could say that the resurrection was already 
past, unless we suppose they affirmed that 
men were raised from the dead a thousand 
years before they existed, and such a decla- 
ration would not be likely to overthrow the 
faith of many. This view of a past and 
continuous resurrection, Paul pronounces 
an error, because he regarded the resurrec- 
tion as a future event, and taught that it 
would be sudden and universally simultane- 
ous. This argument of itself is sufficient 
to overthrow the dreams of Swedenburg, 
and the more recent speculations of Mr. 
Bush. But there are other arguments yet 
to be pressed. 



2. The Scriptures clearly teach that the 
resurrection will take place at the end of 
time, when this mundane system will be 
dissolved and terminated. 

This appears to be implied in some of 
the texts already quoted, but others shall 
be adduced clear and direct. 

John vi. 39, 40, 44 : " And this is the 
Father's will which hath sent me, That of 
all which he hath given me I should lose 
nothing, but should raise it up again at the 
last day. And this is the will of him that 
sent me, That every one which seeth the 
Son, and believeth on him, may have ever- 
lasting life : and I will raise him up at the 
last day. No man can come to me, except 
the Father, which hath sent me, draw him : 
and I will raise him up at the last day." 

Here Jesus asserts three times, of those 
who believed in him, that he will raise them 
up at the last day. The expression " last 
day," is too plain and definite to be misun- 
derstood ; it means the end of time, the day 
of judgment. It is true, Christ speaks of 
raising up believers only, but this does not 
weaken the argument. The fact that it is 
at the last day that be will raise the righte- 
ous, necessarily connects their resurrection 
with the resurrection of the wicked, as their 
resurrection cannot be deferred beyond the 
last day. This makes the resurrection gen- 
eral and universally simultaneous at the last 
day, or at the end of time. Moreover, in 
chap. xii. 48, Christ fixes the judgment of 
unbelievers upon this same last day, upon 
which he promises to raise up believers. 

" He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not 
my words, hath one that judgeth him : the 
word that I have spoken, the same shall 
judge him in the last day." 

That Christ means the same time by the 
last day, in both these texts, cannot be 
doubted. This sense is further confirmed by 
the text that follows. 

John xi. 23, 24 : " Jesus saith unto her, 
Thy brother shall rise again. Martha 
saith unto him, I know that he shall rise 
again in the resurrection at the last day." 

There can be no doubt in regard to what 



298 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



Martha moant by the words, " I know that 
he sliall rise again in the resurrection at the 
last day." She clearly believed in the doc- 
trine of a general resurrection at the end 
of time, and then she knew her brother wo\ild 
rise. This was not only the common be- 
lief of the orthodox Jews, but it is quite 
probable she was present, and marked the 
words of Christ when he said of the be- 
liever, " I will raise him up at the last day, 
and she could but understand his words in 
the light of the common belief. Christ did 
not intimate that she had mistaken the truth, 
but only affirmed what was true in addition, 
in effect, that he was the resurrection power 
and that her brother should be raised then 
and there by him, leaving her in full pos- 
session of her faith, in the doctrine of a 
general resurrection at the last day. 

Rev. XX. 11-13 : " And I saw a great 
white throne, and him that sat on it, from 
whose face the earth and the heaven fled 
away ; and there was found no place for 
them. And I saw the dead, small and great, 
stand before God : and the books were 
opened : and another book was opened, 
which is the hook of life : and the dead were 
judged out of those things which were writ- 
ten in the books, according to their works. 
And the sea gave up the dead which were 
in it ; and death and hell delivered up the 
dead which were in them : and they were 
judged every man according to their works." 

That this text refers to the closing up of 
the affairs of time, and the final judgment, 
no one doubts who believes in any such event. 
The reader will please to note the points in- 
volved. 

(1.) The heavens and the earth pass away, 
by which this world is meant. This involves 
the end of time. 

(2.) The dead are raised. All the dead 
are raised at this time. " I saw the dead 
small and great stand before God." This 
includes all the dead. It is next told where 
they came from, or how they came before 
God. " The sea gave up the dead which 
were in it." These may be referred to as 
the most unlikely subjects of a resurrection. 



" And death and hell delivered up the dead 
that were in them." This includes all the 
dead, those of the sea and land. Death has 
had dominion over the bodies only, the soul 
does not die, hence death as the keeper of 
the bodies of all the dead, is represented as 
giving up its dead. Hell, hades, the place 
of departed spirits, as the keeper of the 
souls of the dead, is represented as giving 
them up ; hence, all the dead were seen, 
" small and great." 

(3.) The judgment proceeds. And this 
judgment includes the case of both the 
righteous and the wicked. The books are 
opened, and the dead are judged out of the 
things written in the books, '• every man 
according to his works." This makes the 
judgment include both classes, saint and sin- 
ner. The Book of life was also open, which 
proves that the righteous, as well as the 
wicked, were judged. Once more, " whoso- 
ever was not found written in the book of 
life, was cast into the lake of fire." Verse 
1 5. This implies that some were found writ- 
ten in the book of life in that judgment, 
which makes it sure that the righteous were 
judged at the same time. 

3. The Scriptures teach that the resur- 
rection will take place at the second coming 
of Christ. 

The fact of the second coming of Christ 
will be involved in the next section, and 
more fully established in connection with 
the general judgment. In this place it is 
treated only as connected with the resurrec- 
tion. 

1 Cor. XV. 24-26 : " Then cometh the 
end, when he shall have delivered up the 
kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he 
shall have put down all rule and all author- 
ity, and power. For he must reign till he 
hath put all enemies under his feet. The 
last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." 

This whole chapter treats of the resur- 
rection of the dead, and the above, is said 
by Paul, by way of showing when the dead 
will be raised. It will be when the end 
shall come, the end of the world, the end of 
the Gospel dispensation, the close of Christ's 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



299 



mediatorial kingdom and reign ; then, when 
this end comes, the resurrection shall take 
place. The raising of the dead, and the 
judging of the world, are described as his 
last official acts as mediator, when he shall 
have finished which, he will deliver up the 
kingdom to God." Now as Paul treats of 
the resurrection of the righteous in partic- 
ular, in connection with this subject, it de- 
fers their resurrection to the close of his 
mediatorial reign, and as it is not pretended 
that the wicked will be raised before the 
righteous, the resurrection must be general 
in connection with Christ's second com- 
ing. 

Phil. iii. 20, 21 : " For our conversation 
is in heaven ; from whence also we look for 
the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ ; who 
shall change our vile body, that it may be 
fashioned like unto his glorious body, ac- 
cording to the working whereby he is able 
even to subdue all things unto himself." 

Here the changing of our bodies is con- 
nected with the appearing of Jesus Christ 
from heaven. This change is beyond all 
doubt, the same as that mentioned, 1 Cor, xv. 
51-53. It is clear therefore, that the res- 
urrection stands connected with the second 
coming of Christ. 

Col. iii. 4 : " When Christ, who is our 
life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear 
with him in glory." 

The soul appears in glory with Christ 
when it leaves the body, as was shown in 
sections three and four, and hence this must 
refer to the resurrection at the second ad- 
vent. 

1 Thes. iv. 13-17 : " But I would not 
have you to be ignorant, brethren, concern- 
ing them which are asleep, that ye sorrow 
not, even as others which have no hope. 
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose 
again, even so them also which sleep in Je- 
sus will God bring with him. For this we 
say unto you by the word of the Lord, that 
we which are alive, and remain unto the 
coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them 
which are asleep. For the Lord himself 
shall descend from heaven with a shoat 



with the voice of the archangel, and with 
the trump of God : and the dead in Christ 
shall rise first : Then we which are alive 
and remain, shall be caught up together 
with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord 
in the air : and so shall we ever be with the 
Lord." 

Here is described the resurrection of all 
the saints, as to take place ai the coming 
of Christ. 

By those who are asleep, the dead are 
meant. " We which are alive, and remain 
unto the coming of the Lord," refers to those 
who shall be alive at the time when Christ 
shall come. By 1 heir not preventing those 
" which are asleep." is meant that the liv- 
ing shall not go before the dead, in the order 
of the ascension. The expression, " the 
dead in Christ shall rise first," does not mean 
that the dead in Christ shall rise before the 
dead put of Christ, or the wicked dead, but 
that the pious dead shall rise before the as- 
cension shall take place. 

The expression, " The Lord himself shall 
descend from heaven with a shout, with the 
voice of the arch angel, and with the trump 
of God," proves that it is really the second 
coming of Christ, and the general resurrec- 
tion, of which the Apostle is speaking. 
" The trump of God," is doubtless the same 
as that spoken of 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52 : " We 
shall be changed in a moment, at the sound 
of the last trump : for the trumpet shall 
sound and the dead shall be raised." Here 
all admit that Paul treats of the general 
resurrection. In these texts Paul treats 
specifically only of the resurrection of the 
pious, but in his second epistle to the Thes- 
salonians, he connects the wicked with the 
same event. It appears that they so mis- 
took his meaning in the passage quoted 
above, as to infer that the second advent 
was nigh at hand ; this he corrected at the 
opening of the second chapter. But he in- 
troduces the event in the first chapter as 
follows : 

2 Thes. i. 6-10 : " Seeing it is a righteous 
thing with God to recompense tribulation 
to them that trouble you ; And to you who 



300 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



are troubled, rest with us ; when the Lord 
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his 
mighty angels, In flaming fire, taking ven- 
geance on them that know not God, and that 
obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus 
Christ : Who shall be punished with ever- 
lasting destruction from the presence of the 
Lord, and from the glory of his power ; 
When he shall come to be glorified in his 
saints, and to* e admired in all them that 
believe." 

This clearly relates to the same event and 
necessarily includes the resurrection of the 
wicked, as well as the resurrection of the 
righteous. The Apostle tells them that 
God will recompense tribulation to those 
who then troubled them, when the Lord Je- 
sus should be revealed from heaven. But 
this could be only at the resurrection of 
those wicked troublers, for he told them in 
the next chapter, that the coming of Christ 
was not at hand. It also includes all " that 
know not God and obey not the Gospel of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punish- 
ed with everlasting destruction from the 
presence of the Lord, and from the glory of 
his power." This must be the final punish- 
ment of the wicked, and the blessing con- 
ferred upon believers, named as being be- 
stowed at the same time, must be their final 
reward. These are both named, the punish- 
ment and the blessing, as transpiring at the 
time of the resurrection, and in connection 
with the second coming of Christ, and the 
conclusion is irresistible, that the resurrec- 
tion of the dead will transpire suddenly and 
universally at the end of this world, as a 
preparatory work for a universal judg- 
ment, which will be the theme of the next 
section. 

SECTION VI. 

The Judgment of the Last Day. 

The Scriptures clearly teach that there 
will be, at the end of this world, and at the 
time of the resurrection of the dead, a gen- 
eral judgment, at which all men will be 



called to give an account for their conduct 
in this life. This doctrine is so plainly 
taught, that it is really wonderful that any 
one pretending to believe the Scriptures 
should deny it, yet it has often been denied, 
and it is proper to present a brief outline 
of the proof of this important truth. 

1. It is worthy of notice, that the Scrip- 
tures speak of the judgment as an event yet 
future, and not as though it had taken place, 
or as though it were now transpiring every 
day. 

Eccl. xii. 14 : " For God shall bring 
every work into judgment with every secret 
thing, whether it be good or whether it be 
evil." 

Mark the expression, God shall bring, 
not has brought, nor does bring, every work 
into judgment. 

Eom. xiv. 10 : " For we must," not do, 
" all stand before the judgment seat of 
Christ." 

2 Cor. V. 10 : " For we must," not do, 
" all appear before the judgment seat of 
Christ." 

2. Another class of Scriptures fix the 
judgment at a set time, or on an appointed 
day. 

Acts xvii. 31 : " He hath appointed a 
day in the which he will judge the world in 
righteousness." 

Rom. ii. 16 : " In the day when God shall 
judge the secrets of men by Jesas Christ." 

Jude 6 : " The judgment of the greet 
day." 

2. Pet. ii. 9 : " The day of judgment." 

John xii. 48 : " He that rejecteth me and 
receiveth not my words hath one that judg- 
eth him. The word that I speak, the same 
shall judge him at the last day." 

These expressions, " the day of judgment," 
" the day when God shall judge the secrets 
of men," " the judgment of the great day," 
" that day," " the last day," &c., were com- 
mon among the Jews ; and how they under- 
stood them, and consequently how they are 
to be understood when they occur in the 
Scriptures, may be seen by the following 
extract from Josephus. " For all men, the 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



301 



just as well as tlie unjust, shall be brought I before Christ, and the queen of the south 



before God the word, for to him hath the 
Father committed all judgment. This per- 
son, exercising a righteous judgment of the 
Father towards all men, hath prepared a 
just sentence for every one according to his 
works ; at whose judgment seat when all 
men and angels, and demons shall stand, 
they will send forth one voice, and say, just 
IS THE JUDGMENT." — [See Discourse on 
Hades. 

3. The Scriptures speak of the judg- 
ment of former generations as yet to come. 

Matt. X. 15 : "It shall be more tolerable 
for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the 
day of judgment than for that city;" xi. 
23, 24 : " And thou Capernaum, it shall be 
more tolerable for the land of Sodom, in the 
day of judgment than for thee." 

Luke xi. 31, 32 : " The queen of the south 
shall rise up in the judgment with this gen- 
eration, and condemn it. The men of Nine 
veh shall rise up in judgment with this gen 
eration, and shall condemn it." 

It is here declared that it shall be more 
tolerable, in the day of judgment, for the 
land of Sodom and Gomorrah, than for those 
cities where Jesus preached and wrought 
miracles without effecting their moral re- 
form. Mark the peculiar language ; Christ 
does not say it was more tolerable for the 
land of Sodom than it shall he for thee, in 
the day of judgment, but it shall he more 
tolerahle, &c., referring the whole to the fu- 
ture, clearly implying that those ancient 
cities, which in ages past had withered from 
existence under the divine displeasure, had 
not yet received their final judgment, and that 
they were yet to be judged together with 
the unbelieving Jews of our Lord's time. 
This clearly shows tha,t the final judgment 
and punishment of sinners are matters which 
belong to the future world. 

Again, it is said in the above quotations, 
that the queen of the south, and the men of 
Nineveh, shall rise in judgment with those 
to whom Christ preached, and condemn 
them. Now, the Ninevites, here referred 
to, lived eight hundred and sixty-two years 



made her visit to gee the wisdom of Solo- 
mon, about one thousand years before Christ ; 
and yet these are said to rise up in the judg- 
ment with the Jews of our Lord's day. 
And how can this be unless a general judg- 
ment is referred to ? Surely, generations so 
remote from each other in point of time, be- 
tween whose earthly allotment^, nations rose 
and fell, and millions came and went on the 
waves of intervening ages, cannot rise to- 
gether in judgment, only upon the supposi- 
tion of a general judgment at the end of 
time. 

4. Another class of texts speak of the 
judgment as after death. 

Acts X. 42 : " And he commanded us to 
preach unto the people, and to testify that 
it is he which was ordained of God to be 
judge of quick and dead." 

2 Tim. iv. 1 : " I charge thee therefore, 
before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who 
shall judge the quick and the dead at his 
appearing." 

1 Peter iv. 5 : " Who shall give account 
to him that is ready to judge the quick and 
the dead." 

In these texts, by the quick, we are to 
understand those who shall be alive upon 
the earth when the judgment shall sit ; and 
by the dead, we are to understand such 
as die previously to the judgment, who will 
be raised from the dead. 

What most clearly confirms the point, 
that these Scriptures relate to a judgment 
after death, and at the general resurrection, 
is the circumstance that Christ is declared 
to be the judge. There can be no doubt 
but it is in the Kedeemer's glorified charac- 
ter that he will judge the world ; and if so, 
it follows that the judgment must be after 
death, and at the general resurrection ; oth- 
erwise all those generations and nations of 
men, who had their being, and passed into 
the future world before the death and resur- 
rection of Jesus Christ, have no part in the 
judgment ; whereas, Christ, in his glorified 
character, is constituted judge of the world, 
of the " quick and dead." If Christ is the 



302 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



judge of all men in his glorified character, 
the judgment must be, subsequent to his 
resurrection and exaltation, which proves 
beyond the possibility of doubt, that men 
are judged after death ; for the inhabitants 
of four thousand years had lived and were 
dead before this event. This view is sus- 
tained by the Apostle, Acts xvii. 31 : " He 
hath appointed a day in the which he will 
judo-e the v/orld in righteousness, by that 
n!:i.: .s ""luned whereof he hath 

given assurance unto axi men, in that he hath 
raised him from the dead." 

Heb. ix. 27 : " It is appointed unto men 
once to die, and after this the judgment." 

This text is so plain as not to need com- 
ment, had not Universalists belabored it. 
As men are subject to one temporal death, 
and one only, so it was necessary for Christ 
to die once and once only, as their substi- 
tute to redeem them ; and as men are ac- 
countable for the improvement they make 
upon his grace, and hence must be judged 
after death, after the opportunity for such 
improvement is past, so Christ must appear 
a second time to judge them. As men die 
once, so Christ died once to redeem them, 
and as men are to be judged after death, so 
Christ is to come as judge subsequently to 
his death ; and as he came at the end of 
the Mosaic dispensation as Redeemer, so 
will he come at the end of the Gospel dis- 
pensation, that is, the end of the world, as 
judge. 

Rev. XX. 12, 13 : " And I saw the dead, 
small and great, stand before God, and the 
books were opened, and the dead were 
judged out of the things which were writ- 
ten in the books, according to their works ; 
and the sea gave up the dead that were in it." 

This text speaks of all the dead, of their 
standing before God, and of their being 
judged ; and to render it more certain if 
possible, the judgment of the dead is con- 
nected with the resurrection of the body ; 
" and the sea gave up the dead that were 
in it." This shows, that by the dead, 
those who have died the death of the body, 
are intended. 



5. Another class of texts speak of the 
judgment, as taking place at the time of the 
second appearing of Christ. 

Matt. XXV. 31, 32 : " When the Son of 
Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy 
angels with him, then shall he sit upon the 
throne of his glory, and before him shall be 
gathered all nations." 

This is a very important text, and is en- 
titled to a thorough investigation. There 
are but two leading opinions held in regard 
to it. All who believe that there will be a 
general judgment, have no doubt that it re- 
fers to that event. Those who deny that 
there is to be a general judgment, insist that 
it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, and 
that it was fulfilled in that event. The text 
is so clear as to render it decisive ; if it re- 
lates to a general judgment it settles the 
question on that side ; if it had its entire 
fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem, 
the doctrine of a general judgment can 
hardly be maintained, for no texts appear 
more decisive on that side. Those who 
maintain that this text speaks of the des- 
truction of Jerusalem, explain it by the 
preceding chapter, and by Luke xxi. This 
is an error. While those chapters treat of 
several things, embracing the destruction of 
Jerusalem and the end of the world, Matt. 
XXV. 31-46, treats exclusively of the second 
coming of Christ and of the general judg- 
ment. To establish this position let the 
text first be examined, and then let it be 
compared with other texts, which are 
supposed to relate to the same subject. 

1. Christ is here said to come in his glo- 
ry : which cannot relate to the destruction 
of Jerusalem. We often read of the ap- 
pearances of the divine glory, as when the 
angel of God appeared to the shepherds on 
Judah's hills, Luke ii. 9. Christ also speaks 
of the glory he had with the Father " be- 
fore the world was," John xvii. 5. But in 
no sense did Christ come in his glory when 
Jerusalem fell under the pressure of Roman 
arms. Let the Christian look upon the 
record of that event, and fancy that he hears 
the clangor of swords and shields, the shouts 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



303 



of the victors and the groans of the wound- 
ed and dying, and that he sees the flames 
and rising columns of smoke from the dis- 
solving city, and then ask himself if this is 
the glory of the Son of Man. Is this the 
glory he hopes to enjoy with his divine Lord ? 
Christ prayed, " Father, glorify thou me 
with the glory I had with thee before the 
world was ;" and St. Paul, in speaking of 
the high calling of the Christian, says, Rom. 
viii. 17 : "If children, then heirs, heirs of 
God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, if so 
be we suffer with him that we may be glo- 
rified together.'' But if Christ came in his 
glory at the destruction of Jerusalem, we 
should pray, Lord, save us from thy glory. 

2. In the text Christ is said to come 
with all the holy angels ; which was not the 
case at the destruction of Jerusalem. Some in 
their desperation on this point, have afBrm-i. 
ed that the Roman army were the holy an- 
gels spoken of But the Roman army was 
composed of heathen, who are never called 
holy in Scriptural language. This very 
army was called the abomination of desola- 
tion, in the words of Daniel, as quoted and 
applied by Christ, Matt. xxiv. 15, 16 : 
" When ye shall see the abomination of 
desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, 
stand in the holy place, then let them that 
be in Judea, flee into the mountains." 

3. It is declared in the text that Christ 
shall sit upon the throne of his glory, at his 
coming here referred to, which was not the 
case at the destruction of Jerusalem. Where- 
in did Christ sit upon the throne of his glory 
at the destruction of Jerusalem, any more 
than at the fall of Babylon, or at the disso- 
lution of the Roman empire ? 

4. In the text it is said that all nations 
shall be gathered before Christ at his com- 
ing here referred to. Now there was no 
gathering of nations at the destruction of 
Jerusalem, but rather a scattering : the 
Christians and all strangers fled on the ap- 
proach of the Roman army. 

5. It is said in the text, that Christ shall 
separate them, (nations,) one from another. 
Now what nations were separated at the 



destruction of Jerusalem, by being parted 
from each other, or by each being severed 
in its own members ? It is clear that no 
such separation took place. The Jews only 
v/ere overthrown and scattered among all 
nations. 

6. When Christ shall come, as predicted 
in this text, the obedient are to be rewarded 
or blessed, upon consideration of their for- 
mer good character. " Come, ye blessed of 
my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared 
for you from the foundation of the world, 
for I was a hungered and ye gave me meat." 
What is this kingdom prepared from the 
foundation of the world, which the right- 
eous now inherit ? It cannot mean the gos- 
pel kingdom on earth, to which the Gen- 
tiles were then called ; for the call of the 
Gentiles took place long before this period : 
it being an acknowledged fact, that the Gos- 
pel had been preached throughout the Ro- 
man empire before the fall of Jerusalem. 
Again, the righteous, in this text, are re- 
warded for what they had done, or on the 
ground of their former good conduct, which 
was not the case in the call of the Gentiles ; 
for they were received into the Gospel 
church on condition of their present repent- 
ance and faith, and not on account of what 
they had been or had done. It will be equal- 
ly futile to say that by the reward here 
promised to the faithful, we are to under- 
stand their preservation amid the ruins of 
that bloody siege. A temporal deliverance, 
or a deliverance from temporal death, is not 
well described by " a kingdom prepared 
from the foundation of the world." As 
well might it be said that the same reward 
was extended to the three worthies on their 
coming forth from the fiery furnace, or to 
Daniel, on his deliverance from the den of 
lions. As well might every Christian be 
said to inherit a kingdom prepared from 
the foundation of the world, when he is in 
any way delivered from impending danger. 

7. At the coming of Christ, described in 
the text, the wicked will be punished with 
a punishment prepared for the devil and his 
angels. It was proved in section second of 



804 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



this chapter, that devils are fallen spirits, who 
inhabit the invisible world, from which it 
must follow that the calamities which befell 
the Jews cannot be intended, by a punish- 
ment prepared for the devil and his angels. 

Having examined this very important 
text, and drawn out of it, the leading facts 
which point to a general judgment in con- 
nection with a second coming of Christ, it 
is proper to compare it with other texts 
which relate to the same event. 

1 Thess. iv. 15 : " The Lord himself shall 
descend from heaven, with a shout, with the 
voice of the arch-angel, and with the trump 
of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise 
first." This text speaks of Christ's coming 
at the resurrection of the dead, which proves 
that he will come at the end of the world, 
when all the dead will be raised. That the 
resurrection here referred to, is the resurrec- 
tion of the body, is certain, from the refer- 
ence which the text contains, to the manner 
of the general resurrection, by the sounding 
of the last trump. It must be admitted that 
the same writer is to be understood to mean 
the same thing, when he uses similar ex- 
pressions in different places, unless the na- 
ture of the subject absolutely requires a 
different construction. All admit that 1 
Cor. XV., contains an account of the resur- 
rection of the dead ; and in this chapter, 
verse 52, the apostle describes the manner 
in which the resurrection will be effected, 
viz., by sounding the trumpet — "for the 
trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be 
raised." If this then refers to the general 
resurrection, how clear must it be that the 
same writer refers to the same event when 
he says, " The Lord shall descend from hea- 
ven with the trump of God, and the dead 
shall rise." Having shown that 1 Thess iv. 
16., speaks of Christ's coming at the general 
resurrection, it is proper to proceed to com- 
pare it with Matt. xxv. 31-46, in farther 
proof that it relates to the same event. 
Please mark the points of resemblance be- 
tween the language of Christ in Matthew 
and St. Paul in Tessalonians. 

(1.) Christ says, " The Son of Man shall 



come in his glory ;" Paul says, " The Lord 
himself shall descend from heaven with a 
shout, with the voice of the arch-angel and 
the trump of God." 

(2.) Christ says, " The Son of Man shall 
come, and all the holy angels with him. ;" 
Paul says, as above, that he " shall descend 
with a shout, with the voice of the arch-angel. 
His coming with a shout, answers to his 
coming with all the holy angels, for a shout 
supposes that he will have attendants who 
will give the shout. 

(3.) Christ says, " All nations shall be 
gathered before him ;" Paul says, " The 
dead shall rise." 

(4.) Christ speaks to the faithful, " come 
ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom 
prepared for you from the foundation of the 
world." These shall go " into life eternal." 
Paul says, of the righteous, " they shall bo 
caught up to meet the Lord in the air, so 
shall they ever be with the Lord." 

Nothing but a determination to support 
an opinion, at all hazards, could lead the 
mind to apply these texts to different events. 
They seem to refer to the same event, with 
this difference only — Christ treats of both 
the righteous and the wicked, while St. Paul 
speaks of the righteous only. But the apos- 
tle, in his second letter to the , same people, 
treats of both the righteous and the wicked. 
2. Thess. i. 7-10 r " When the Lord Jesus 
shall be revealed from heaven in jQaming fire, 
taking vengeance on them that know not 
God, and obey not the Gospel of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with 
everlasting destruction from the presence of 
the Lord, and from the glory of his power, 
when he shall come to be glorified in his 
saints." That this text relates to the same 
event described in the former one, must ap- 
pear, when we consider, 

(1.) That they were both penned by the 
same hand. 

(2.) That they were both directed to the 
same people. 

(3.) They resemble each other so nearly 
as not to admit of an application to differ- 
ent events without an express warrant from 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



305 



the author. Note, the first of these texts 
says, " The Lord himself shall descend from 
heaven," The second says, " The Lord Je- 
sus shall be revealed from heaven." One 
says, " He shall descend v^ith the voice of 
the archangel." The other says, " He shall 
be revealed with his mighty angels." Now, 
that 2 Thess. i. 7-10, does not relate to the 
destruction of Jerusalem must appear from 
a consideration of the people to whom it 
was addressed. 

(1.) The church at Thessalonica was not 
composed of Jews, but principally of devout 
Greeks and converted heathen. " Hence," 
says Dr. Clarke, " we find in the epistle but 
few allusions to the Jews, and but few ref- 
ferences to the peculiarities of their religi- 
ous or civil institutions." 

(2.) The Thessalonians were too remote 
from Jerusalem to be materially affected by 
the judgments which befel this devoted city. 
Thessalonica was a city of Europe distant 
nearly one thousand miles from the noise and 
blood of the seige and fall of Jerusalem. 
In view of these circumstances, to suppose 
that St. Paul appealed to their hopes and 
fears on the ground of the fall of Jerusalem, 
describing the event by a revelation of the 
Lord Jesus from heaven, with his mighty an- 
gels in flaming fire, is too absurd to be believed. 

There are other texts which connect the 
judgment with the second coming of Christ 
but what has been said must suffice. It is 
the ahnost universal faith of Christians that 
Christ will come again, and the judgment 
being so clearly connected with the second 
advent, the proof is conclusive in support 
of a future general judgment, 

8. The Scriptures connect the judgment of 
which they speak with the end of the world 

Some few may deny that the end of this 
world is foretold in the Scriptures, but whe- 
ther it be denied or not, it is clearly taught 
in the Bible. 

Heb. i, 10-12 : " Thou Lord in the be- 
ginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, 
and the heavens are the work of thine hands ; 
they shall perish, but thou remainest ; and 
they all shall wax old as doth a garment, 
20 



and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, 
and they shall be changed ; l)ut thou art 
the same, and thy years shall not fail." 

That the literal heavens and earth are in- 
tended in this text, is evident from the plain 
reference to the Mosaic account of the crea- 
tion which it contains. Gen. i. 1: ''In the 
beginning God created the heavens and the 
earth." Now, it is clear that the same be- 
ginning is referred to in the text above quo- 
ted. *' Thou, Lord in the beginning hast 
laid the foundations of the earth and the 
heavens are the work of thy hands ;" and 
if the same beginning is referred to in both 
texts, it must follow that the same heavens 
and earth are also intended. It is then clear 
that the literal heavens and earth, which 
God created in the beginning are to perish, 
wax old, as doth a garment, and as a vesture 
be folded up. 

It being proved that the world will have 
an end, it only remains to be proved that 
with that end the general judgment stands 
connected. 

2 Pet. iii. 7, 10, 12 : " But the heavens 
and the earth that are now, are kept in store, 
reserved unto fire, against the day of judg- 
ment and perdition of ungodly men. But 
the day of the Lord will come as a thief in 
the night, in the which the heavens shall 
pass away with a great noise, and the ele- 
ments ^all melt with fervent heat ; the 
earth also, and the works that are therein 
shall be burned up. Looking for, and hast- 
ing unto the coming of the day of God, 
wherein the heavens being on fire shall be 
dissolved, and the elements shall melt with 
fervent heat." 

Kev. XX. 11, 12 : " And I saw a great 
white throne, and him that sat upon it, from 
whose face the earth and heavens fled away, 
and there was found no place for them. And 
I saw the dead, small and great, stand be- 
fore God, and the dead were judged." 

These Scriptures connect tjie general 
judgment with the end of time, or with the- 
dissolution of this whole mundane system, 
and as a necessary consequence, the judg- 
ment must be future and general. 



306 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



SECTION VII. 

The Final State of the Righteous 

It has been implied in preceding sections, 
that the righteous will enter upon an end- 
less state of happiness at the time of the 
general judgment, yet this point is worthy 
of more special attention. There is a 
place in the future spirit world, beyond the 
limits of this life, called heaven, where the 
righteous will find a happy and an eternal 
home. 

I. Heaven is a place. 

In affirming that heaven is a place, it is 
not designed to deny what others affirm, 
that it is a state. 

1. The names which are employed to 
designate the future abode of the saints, 
necessarily involves the idea of a local hab- 
itation. " Jesus said unto him, Yerily, I 
say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me 
in paradise." Luke xxiii. 43. The word 
Paradise occurs three times only, in the 
New Testament, twice besides the text 
under consideration, and in each case it ex- 
presses a place, as will be seen. The word 
means a garden, and is particularly used to 
denote a garden of pleasure. The word 
Eden denotes pleasure, hence, the garden of 
Eden means the garden of pleasure, and in 
Gen. ii. 8, it is rendered Paradise, in the 
Septuagint. 

The word is used, 2 Cor. xii. 4. Paul 
here, no doubt, speaks of himself, and what 
he here calls paradise, in the second verse, 
he calls " the third heaven." Paradise 
here must mean a place of happiness in the 
spirit world. 

Eev. ii. 7 : "To him that overcometh 
will I give to eat of the tree of life, which 
is in the midst of the paradise of God." 

This text must be absolutely void of 
sense, and can convey no idea to the mind, 
unless the idea of place be first allowed as the 
basis of whatever else the text may teach. 

Heaven is also represented as a country, 
a city, a building, a mansion, a kingdom, a 
crown, and glory, all of which imply a 



place. " But now they desire a better 
country, that is, a heavenly : wherefore 
God is not ashamed to be called their God ; 
for he hath prepared for them a city." Heb. 
xi. 16. Of Abraham it is said, " he looked 
for a city which hath foundations, whose 
builder and maker is God." " In my Fa- 
ther's house are many mansions : I go to 
prepare a place for you." John xiv. 2. 
This text not only speaks of a future abode 
of saints as a place, by calling it a house 
with many mansions, but it affirms it to be 
a place in words. "I go to prepare a 
place for you." The word here rendered 
place, used in connection with house and 
mansions, can mean nothing but a local po- 
sition, as a place of abode. ''For we know 
that if our earthly house of this tabernacle 
were dissolved, we have a building of God, 
a house not made with hands, eternal in the 
heavens." 2 Cor. v. 1. " Come ye blessed 
of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared 
for you from the foundation of the world." 
Matt. XXV. 34. " Henceforth there is laid 
up for me a crown of righteousness. 2. 
Tim. iv. 8. " Be thou faithful unto death 
and I will give you a crown of life." Rev. 
ii. 10. " Thou shalt guide me with thy 
counsel, and afterwards receive me to glory." 
PsaL Ixxiii. 24. " To an inheritance incor- 
ruptable and undefiled, and that fadeth not 
away, reserved in heaven for you." 1 Pe- 
ter i. 4. 

The above texts all imply a place, some 
local habitation, where saints will find a 
final happy home. 

2. The typical character of the Jewish 
tabernacle, with its holy of holies, its mercy 
seat, its cherubims of glory, and the visible 
emblem of the divine presence, constitutes 
strong evidence of a local heaven. 

" We have such a high priest, who is set 
on the right hand of the throne of the Maj- 
esty in the heavens ; a minister in the sanc- 
tuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the 
Lord pitched and not man." Heb. viii. 1, 2. 

Heb. ix. 11, 12 : " But Christ having 
come, an high priest of good things to come, 
by a greater and more perfect tabernacle 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE.. 



307 



not made witli hands, tliat is to say, not of 
this building- ; neither by the blood of goats 
and calves, but by his own blood he enter- 
ed into the holy place, having obtained 
eternal redemption for us." 

Here the tabernacle of the Jews is clearly 
represented as significant of heaven which 
is the " greater and more perfect taberna- 
cle not made with hands," into which 
Christ has entered " by his own blood." 
We read of the " heaven of heavens," which 
implies at least three heavens. Paul also 
speaks of " the third heavens." The first 
heaven is the atmosphere that surrounds 
this earth ; the second heaven is the space 
occupied by the stars, as we read of the 
stars of heaven ; and the third heaven is 
the place where God is represented as hav^ 
ing his throne, and where Christ is said to 
be " on the right hand of the throne of the 
Majesty in the heavens," and which shall be 
the future abode of the saints. After this 
pattern was the tabernacle constructed 
There was the outer covering, within which 
was the tabernacle of the congregation 
where any Jew might enter and worship 
next came the first veil, through which 
none were permitted to pass but the priests, 
into what was called the holy place ; and 
then came the second vail, through which 
none passed but the high priest, into what 
was called the holiest of all, where was the 
mercy seat and the visible emblem of the 
divine presence. Thus does it appear from 
the structure and typical character of the 
Jewish sanctuary, that heaven is a place. 
Indeed, it is the fact that there is such a 
place, and that Christ is there, having 
already entered " to appear before God for 
us," that constitutes the only basis of that 
faith which is essential to true Christian 
worship, and only ground of that hope 
which is saving in its influence ; " which 
hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both 
sure and steadfast, and which entereth into 
that within the vail ; whither the forerun- 
ner is for us entered, even Jesus made a high 
priest forever after the order of Melchise- 
dec." Heb. vi. 19, 20. 



3. The oft-repeated declaration, in vari- 
ous forms, that Christ has gone to heaven, 
and is in heaven, is conclusive proof of its 
existence as a place. This position has 
been so clearly involved in the preceding 
argument, as to render it necessary to add 
but little more than a mere citation of a 
few of the leading proof texts. 

" And when he had spoken these things, 
while they beheld, he was taken up ; and a 
cloud received him out of their sight. And 
while they looked steadfastly towards 
heaven, as he went up, two men stood by 
them in white apparel ; which also said, ye 
men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up 
into heaven ? This same Jesus which is 
taken up from you into heaven, shall so 
come in like manner as ye have seen him go 
into heaven." Acts i, 9-11. That body 
with which Christ ascended exists some- 
where now, and other Scriptures clearly 
teach that it is in heaven, " It is Christ 
that died, yea, rather that has risen again, 
who is even at the right hand of God, who 
also maketh intercession for us." B,ora. viii. 
34. " Which he wrought in Christ when 
he raised him from the dead, and set him at 
his own right hand." Eph. i. 20. " If ye 
then be risen with Christ, seek those things 
which are above, where Christ sitteth on 
the right hand of God." Col. iii. 1. " When 
he had by himself purged our sins, sat down 
on the right hand of the Majesty on high." 
Heb. i. 3. " We have a great High Priest 
that is passed into the heavens." Heb. iv. 
14. " We have such a High Priest, who 
is set on the right hand of the Majesty in 
the heavens." Heb. viii. 1. " But Christ 
is not entered the holy place made with 
hands, but into heaven itself, now to apjDear 
in the presence of God for us." Heb. ix. 24. 
" But this man after he had offered one 
sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the 
right hand of God." Heb. x. 12. " Look- 
ing unto Jesus, who, for the joy that was 
set before him endured the cross, despised 
the shame, and is set down at the right hand 
of God." Heb. xii. 2. 

The words of the Master are very sig- 



308 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



nificant. " I go to prepare a place for you. 
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I 
will come again, and receive you unto my- 
self ; that where I am there ye may be also." 
John xiv. 2, 3. " Father, I will that those 
thou hast given me be with me where I am ; 
that they may behold my glory." John 
xvii, 24. 

4. The heavenly vision which burst upon 
the mind of Stephen when his life was 
about to be sacrificed for the truth, is 
proof positive of the existence of heaven as 
a place. " But he being full of the Holy 
Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, 
and saw the glory of God, and Jesus stand- 
ing on the right hand of God, and said. Be- 
hold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son 
of Man standing on the right hand of God." 
Acts vii. 55, 56. This is certainly conclu- 
sive, for if there is no heaven, Stephen 
could not have seen the heavens opened ; 
and if there is not a place where God re- 
sides in his visible glory, he could not have 
seen the Son of Man standing on the right 
hand of God. 

5. The vision of Paul is equally conclu- 
sive. He tells us of one who was caught 
up into the third heavens, speaking no doubt 
of himself, where he " heard unspeakable 
words which it is not lawful for a man to 
utter." 2 Cor. xii. If then, heaven is not a 
place, Paul was terribly deceived, or else 
he has attempted to deceive the world, for 
no form of words could more clearly involve 
the idea of a place, than does his account 
of his vision. 

6. There are frequent allusions to heav- 
en, and descriptions of the happiness of its 
inhabitants, which most clearly imply that 
it is a place. The texts referred to in this 
proposition are miscellaneous and numerous, 
and but few of them need be cited. 

Matt. viii. 11 : " And I say unto you, 
that many shall come from the east and 
west and shall sit down with Abraham and 
Isaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of heav- 
en." 

Luke xiii. 28 : " There shall be weeping 
and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see 



Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the 
kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust 
out." 

" For now we see through a glass, darkly; 
but then face to face : now I know in part ; 
but then shall I know even as also I am 
known." 1 Cor. xiii. 12. This text clearly 
speaks of a future state, and seeing face to 
face, implies contiguity and locality. " For 
our light affliction which is but for a mo- 
ment, worketh for us a far more exceeding 
and eternal weight of glory." 2 Cor. iv. 17. 
An eternal weight of glory, carries with it 
the idea of place where such glory is seen, 
known and enjoyed. " And when the chief 
Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a 
crown of glory that fadeth not away." 1 
Peter v. 4. 

" After this I beheld, and lo, a great mul- 
titude, which no man could number, of all 
nations, and kindreds, and people, and 
tongues, stood before the throne, and before 
the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and 
palms in their hands ; and cried with a loud 
voice, saying. Salvation to our God which 
sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. 
And all the angels stood round about the 
throne, and about the elders and the four 
beasts, and fell before the throne on their 
faces, and worshipped God, saying. Amen : 
Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanks- 
giving, and honor, and power, and might, be 
unto our God forever and ever. Amen, 
And one of the elders answered, saying unto 
me. What are these which are arrayed in 
white robes ? and whence came they ? And 
I said unto him. Sir, thou knowest. And 
he said to me. These are they which came 
out of great tribulation, and have washed 
their robes, and made them white in the 
blood of the Lamb. Therefore, are they 
before the throne of God, and serve him day 
and night in his temple : and he that sitteth 
on the throne shall dwell among them. 
They shall hunger no more, neither thirst 
any more : neither shall the sun light on 
them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which 
is in the midst of the throne, shall feed 
them, and shall lead them unto living foun- 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



309 



tains of water : and G-od shall wipe away 
all tears from their eyes." Eev. vii. 9-17. 

Heaven is then clearly a place where the 
saints shall find a future abode. 
• II. Heaven, the city which hath founda- 
tions, may be supposed to be located in the 
centre of God's material or created uni- 
verse. A very natural inquiry is, where is 
our future home located? Where is the 
city for which Abraham looked, whose 
builder and maker is God. If it be a place, 
it must be located somewhere, in some part 
of God's universe. 

God has not, it is true, clearly revealed to 
us where heaven is, nor do I suppose he 
could so reveal its locality, as to enable us 
to understand it as we may understand 
where some distant city of this world is 
which we have never seen. We have no 
geography of the Spirit world and cannot 
comprehend localities within its bounds. 
This globe is but a spec amid the vast 
Vforks of God, an opake atom compared 
with the glittering host that bestud the sky. 
The sun is the centre of a system, around 
which there are thirteen planets constantly 
revolving, of which this earth is one. The 
nearest of these planets to the sun is Mercu- 
ry, and it is distant thirty-seven millions of 
miles. This earth is ninety-five millions of 
miles from the sun. The most distant planet 
from the sun is Le Yerrier, and it is distant 
2,800,000,000 of miles. As the diameter of 
a planet's orbit is double its distance from 
the sun, the system to which this world be- 
longs, must occupy a space of 5,600,000,000 
of miles from side to side, supposing a 
straight line to pass through the centre. 

As there are many fixed stars far in the 
distance beyond our solar system, it is more 
than probable that they are centres to other 
systems, and in the centre of all these sys- 
tems, we may suppose God has his throne, 
and that there is heaven. It is not an un- 
reasonable hypothesis, that God, in creating 
worlds on world, and vast systems of worlds, 
should rear them in all directions and at a 
suitable distance to produce a circumambi- 
ent glory around his own eternal throne, 



within which he has his own habitation, 
where angels dwell, and where saints shall , 
find their future home. And what a heaven, 
to contemplate ! AVhat a city to look for 
must that be, located in the centre of thou- 
sands of such systems of worlds as our own 
solar system, each and all vocal to the ear 
of intelligence with the music of chiming 
orbs, and radiant with the wisdom and good- 
ness and power of the hand that created 
them all, forming an outer circumambient 
wall of glory to Jehovah's own habitation ! 

III. Heaven will be a place of unraingled 
and full enjoyment. 

It is not possible to describe the joys of 
heaven, yet Ave may know what will consti- 
tute some of the elements of heavenly joy. 

1. Heaven wnll be free from all evil of 
every kind and degree. There will be no 
disquietude of mind there, no sickening of 
the heart through deferred hope, no sense of 
insecurity, no fear. The empty hand of 
poverty will never stretch itself out there ; 
and famine with its skinny form and hallow, 
empty jaws will never show itself within the 
walls of that celestial city. There will be 
no sickness there, no bodily pain, no sorrow 
of heart, no parting of friends, no lonely 
feelings, no desolate hours. There will be 
no wasting of strength there, no withered 
forms, no wrinkled brows, no growing old, 
no dying. There will be no moral evil 
there, no sin, and of course no curse. 

2. The associations of heaven will render 
it a place of happiness. In this world our 
associations are all imperfect, and many 
with whom we are often compelled to min- 
gle, are absolutely wicked. There will be 
no evil persons there ; no unholy thoughts 
breathed, no profane words uttered, and no 
painful or corrupting examples witnessed. 

All the good of all ages, " the spirits of 
just men made perfect," and holy angels, will 
constitute the society of heaven. 

3. The employments of heaven may be 
supposed to contribute to its felicity. There 
will be no unoccupied time there hanging 
heavily upon us, and passing too slowly 
away. There will be no exhausting and 



310 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book it. 



unpleasant daties to perform there. The 
very labor of transporting our bodies from 
one point of duty to another, in this world, 
renders life a scene of toil, and the mind 
often becomes weary from the burden of its 
own continued thoughts ; but in heaven it 
will be otherwise. The body will be re- 
newed in spirituality, power and glory, and 
rendered all immortal ; and the mind, no 
longer fettered and loaded with gross ma- 
teriality, will be as free, and light-winged, 
and tireless as thought itself. Deep and in- 
tense contemplation, the most rapturous 
adoration, and the most delightfully active 
and vigorous service, will follow in succes- 
sion and degrees so suited to our enlarged 
capacity, as to leave no vacant moment un- 
filled with joy. 

" Then shall I see, and hear, and know 
All I desir'd or wished below ; 
And every hour find sweet employ, 
In that eternal world of joy." 

4. Nearness to, and communion with God, 
and Jesus Christ our Eedeemer, will fill up 
the measure of heavenly felicity. The vision 
wlrich the saints will enjoy of God and of 
Christ, is represented as constituting at 
least a portion of their future happiness. 
Christ prayed, " O Father, glorify thou me 
with thine own self, with the glory which I 
had with thee before the world was." And 
then he prayed again, " Father, I will that 
they also, whom thou hast given me, be 
with me where I am ; that they may be- 
hold my glory." John xvii. 5, 24. The 
peculiar aspect of this vision cannot now be 
conceived, but to look upon the Eternal, 
and to gaze on him in his glory, who was 
once crucified for our redemption, must be 
heaven itself. But to look upon God the 
Father, and upon the Eedeemer, will be to 
drink into their fellowship and communion, 
and become like them. John appears to 
have had this principle in view when he 
said, ".We know that, when he shall ap- 
pear, we shall be like him, for we shall see 
him as he is." 1 John iii. 2. 

To the extent of our then improved ca- 



capacity, his thoughts will become opr 
thoughts, his holiness will become our holi- 
ness, his love will become our love, his hap- 
piness will become our happiness, and liis 
glory will become our glory. And wha^ 
less than this does Paul mean, when he says, 
2 Cor. iii. 18, " But we all, with open face 
beholding as in a glass the glory of the 
Lord, are changed into the same imago from 
glory to glory." This text also appears to 
involve the law of progress, for it must fol- 
low that the change from glory to glory, 
will proceed onward as we continu-^ to be- 
hold the glory of the Lord, and knowledge 
will flash clearer upon knowledge, and glory 
beam brighter upon glory, and each wave 
of joy will be seen rolling in upon the soul 
higher and deeper than that which pre- 
ceded. 

lY. Heaven will be a final state, eternal 
and changeless, only so far as change is im- 
plied in progress, in happiness and glory. 

No effort need be made to prove that 
heaven will be an eternal abiding home to 
the redeemed and saved. 

Paul declares it to be " a building of God, 
a house not made with hands, eternal in the 
heavens." 2 Cor. v. 1. Peter calls it " an 
inheritance, incorruptible, and undefiled, and 
that fadeth not away." 1 Peter i. 4. 

The subject cannot be better closed than 
in the concluding vision of John. 

" And there thall be no more curse : but 
the throne of God and the Lamb shall be in 
it ; and his servants shall serve him. And 
they shall see his face, and his name shall 
be in their foreheads. And there shall be 
no night there ; and they need no candle ; 
neither light of the sun ;. for. the Lord -God 
giveth them light; and they shall reign for- 
ever and ever." Eev. xxii. 3-5. The con- 
cluding words of this text are emphatic ; 
" and they shall reign forever and ever.'* 
This settles the question, that heaven will be 
an abiding home. 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



311 



SECTION VIII. 

The final Destiny of the Wicked. 

Those who do not repent and believe the 
Gospel in this life, but live and die unpar- 
doned and unregenerated sinners, will be 
judged, condemned, and sentenced to endless 
punishment in hell. 

The main point to be proved is, that the 
punishment of the wicked in the future 
world will be endless. All the arguments 
that might be urged will not be brought 
forward, but some of the principal ones shall 
be adduced. 

I. The Scriptures most clearly and posi- 
tively assert the punishment of sinners to 
be everlasting. 

Matt. XXV. 46 : " And these shall go away 
into everlasting punishment : but the right- 
eous into life eternal." 

The word here used to express the dura- 
tion of punishment, by its own proper signi- 
fication, proves it to be endless. It will 
not be denied that the English word signi- 
fies endless. Everlasting, in its true sense, 
expreses endless duration. 

The defense is that it does not fairly re- 
present the sense of the original word in the 
Greek, from which it is translated. This 
presents the only real issue. 

The word used in the text is aionios. 

1. This word expresses endless duration 
in its own grammatical sense. 

It is an adjective from the noun aion. 
This noun aion is compounded of aei, ever, 
and on, being, literally, making ever-being. 

The etymological sense of the word could 
not more certainly be endless than it is. 

The adjective which is used in the text, 
and translated, everlasting, signifies, unlimit- 
ed as to duration, eternal, everlasting. 
Every Greek author that has been con- 
sulted, agrees in giving this sense to the 
word. Among them, are Donagan, Groves, 
Greenfield, Liddell and Scott. 

I may safely affirm, that there is no Greek 
author who does not so understand and de- 
fine the word. This, of itself, ought to set- 
tle the question. 



2. This word aionios, expresses endless 
duration more positively than any other 
word in the Greek language. 

It is the word which is uniformly em- 
ployed in the New Testament, when the 
writers wish to express absolute endless dura- 
tion. This will be made plain by referring 
to a few of the texts in which it is used to 
express endless duration. 

Matt, xix, 16 : " What good thing shall 
I do that I may have eternal life." 

That this young man inquired after end- 
less life or happiness, there can be no doubt. 

Mark x. 30 : " But he shall receive a 
hundred-fold now in this time, and in the 
world to come, eternal life." 

That our Saviour meant to express the 
idea of a life which should always live, life 
absolutely endless, there can be no doubt. 

Luke X. 25 : " A certain lawyer stood up 
and tempted him, saying, Master, what 
shall I do to inherit eternal life ?" 

That this lawyer made his hypocritical 
inquiry in regard to endless life, there can 
be no doubt. To this our Saviour's an- 
swer agrees. " What is written in the 
law? how readest thou? This do, and 
thou shalt live." 

John iii. 16 : " God so loved the world, 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
whosoever believeth in him should not per- 
ish, but have everlasting life." 

If it be denied that endless life is meant 
here, it must be difficult to prove that the 
Gospel treats of, or promises endless life. 
The same word is used in the preceding 
verse, and is translated eternal life ; zoeen 
aionion, eternal life. 

John vi. 27 : " Labor not for that meat 
which perisheth, but for that which endur- 
eth unto everlasting life, which the Son of 
man shall give unto you." 

If this does not mean endless life, it can- 
not be proved that Christ ever attempted to 
hft the hopes and aspirations of his disciples 
to interests that have no end. 

John X. 28 : '* I give unto them eternal 
life ; and they shall never perish." 

Here eternal life stands opposed to perish- 




312 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II« 



ing, and its endless sense is supported by 
the affirmation, that thoy shall never perish. 
There is not a promise in the Gospel, which 
fell from our Saviour's lips, that ensures an 
endless blessing, if this does not. The word 
occurs but twice in the Acts of the Apos- 
tles as follows : 

Chap. xiii. 46 : " It was necessary that 
the word of God should first have been 
spoken unto you: but seeing you put it 
from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of 
everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." 

Yerse 48 : " As many as were ordained to 
eternal life believed." 

Eom. vi. 23 : " The wages of sin is death, 
but the gift of God is eternal life, through 
Jesus Christ our Lord." 

If there is any such gift of absolute end- 
less life and happiness, as Christians hope 
for in the future world, this text must refer 
to it, and its sense must be endless. 

Rom. xvi. 26 : " According to the com- 
mandment of the everlasting God." 

2 Cor.iv. 17, 18 : " Our light affliction, 
which is but for a moment, worketh for us 
a far more exceeding and eternal weight of 
glory ; while we look not at the things 
which are seen, but at the things which are 
not seen : for the things which are seen are 
temporal ; but the things which are not seen 
are eternal. ''^ 

Here we have the same word in the original, 
used twice to express endless duration. An 
eternal weight of glory is, no doubt, endless 
glory ; and the things which are not seen, 
but are eternal, are, no doubt, endless things. 
Paul clearly designed to express the endless 
duration of the things of heaven, in contra- 
distinction from earthly things, which have 
an end. 

2 Cor. V. 1 : " If our earthly house of this 
tabernacle were dissolved, we have a house 
not made with hands, eternnl in the hea- 
vens." 

It cannot be doubted that Paul designed 
to express endless existence and happiness 
in the future state, by the word aionion, 
here rendered eternal. 

1 Tim. vi. 16 : '• Who only hath immor- 



tality, dwelling in light, which no man can 
approach unto ; whom no man hath seen 
nor can see : to whom be honor and power 
everlasting. 

It will not be denied that the honor and 
power of God are endless, here expressed by 
the word aionion rendered everlasting. 

Titus i. 2 : " In hope of eternal life, which 
God, that cannot lie, promised before the 
world began." 

Heb. ix. 14 : " Who through the eternal 
Spirit offered himself without spot to God." 

2 Peter i. 11 : " The everlasting king- 
dom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." 

1 John v. 11 : " And this is the record, 
that God hath given to us eternal life, and 
this life is in his Son." 

In all of the above texts, endless duration 
is clearly intended to be expressed, and 
they embrace nearly all the passages of the 
class, so that it is plain that it is the word 
which the inspired writers employed, when 
they intended to affirm duration without 
end.. Indeed, it is the strongest term found 
in the Greek language, so that they could 
not have expressed endless happiness and 
misery, more forcibly than they have. 

Besides this word, the noun aion, from 
which this word is derived, is sometimes used 
to express endless duration, but it is not used 
so uniformly in this sense. 

Then there is the word aidios, which is of 
the same import, being derived from the 
same root, but nothing would be gained to 
an opponent, by contending that this is a 
stronger word. It is used but twice in the 
New Testament, as follows : 

Rom. i. 20: "His eternal power and 
Godhead." 

I admit that absolute eternity is here ex- 
pressed, but no more so than in Rom. xvi. 
26, "the everlasting God," in wliich the 
other word is used. 

The other case in which aidios occurs, 13 
Jude 6, " And the angels which kept not 
their first estate, but left their own habita- 
tion, he hath reserved in everlasting chains, 
under darkness, unto the judgment of the 
great day." 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



313 



If it were insisted that this was a strong- 
er term to express endless duration, it would 
prove the eternity of the punishment of fal- 
len angels. 

Then we have the word aJcatalutos, which 
occurs but once in the ISTew Testament. 

Heb. vii. 16 : " Who is made, not after 
the law of a carnal commandment, but after 
the power of an endless life." 

This word is not used in the Greek lan- 
guage to express time, or lapse of time, or 
duration limited or endless, but the quality 
of a thing. Its meaning is, indissoluble, 
indestructible, hence a better translation 
would have been, " after the power of an in- 
dissoluble or indestructible life." The idea 
of perpetuity is necessarily involved, for 
that which is indissoluble and indestructi- 
ble, must be endless. The point is, Christ 
is a priest forever, and to prove it, the wri- 
ter asserts, that he is made a priest after 
the power of an indissoluble life, but in the 
next verse when he asserts, that he is a 
-priest forever, he uses the word aiona, which 
relates to time or duration. 

There is no other word in the Greek lan- 
guage, which is used to express endless du- 
ration, besides the words already examined 
Of these terms aionios is the strongest, and is 
the word generally employed by the writers 
of the New Testament, when they, beyond 
doubt, meant to express endless duration. 
Now, this is the word used by our Saviour 
in the text, " these shall go away into ever- 
lasting punishment." 

Please keep the point under consideration, 
in view. The point is not that the word is 
never applied to express a limited period, 
or to things which have an end. This point 
shall be attended to in its proper place. 
The points thus far proved are, the word 
properly signifies endless, is the strongest 
word in the Greek language which can be 
employed to express the idea of endless du- 
ration, and is the one generally used by the 
inspired writers, when they clearly designed 
to express that idea. 

8. There is nothing in the manner or the 
connection to limit the sense of the word, 



when it is applied to the punishment of sin- 
ners. 

The text. Matt. xxv. 46, presents a clear 
illustration of this proposition. 

"These shall go away into everlasting 
punishment; but the righteous into life 
eternal y 

Here the word everlasting, qualifying the 
punishment of the wicked, and the word 
eternal, qualifying the life of the righteous, 
are both translated from the same word in 
the original ; kolsin aionion, punishment 
everlasting, and zoeen aionion, life eternal, 
or just as correctly, everlasting. 

The punishment of the wicked, so far as 
the force of the language employed is con- 
cerned, is just as certainly endless as is the 
happiness of the righteous. 

If we push this investigation into an ex- 
amination of all the principal texts, in which 
the punishment of the wicked is described, 
we shall find that the connection strengthens 
rather than weakens the idea of its endless 
duration. 

Matt, xviii. 8 : " If thy hand or thy foot 
offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from 
thee : it is better for thee to enter into life 
halt or maimed, rather than having two 
hands, or two feet, to be cast into everlast- 
ing fire." 

Matt. xxv. 41 : " Then shall he say also 
unto them on the left hand, Depart from 
me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared 
for the devil and his angels." 

In this last text, the sending away of the 
wicked into everlasting fire, stands connect- 
ed with the reception of the righteous to 
heaven ; " Come ye blessed of my Father, 
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from 
the foundation of the world." 

But both texts declare that the wick- 
ed will be punished with everlasting fire- 
Whatever this fire is in kind or degree, 
it is everlasting. That everlasting here 
means endless, must appear from anoth- 
er text, which speaks of the same fire, 
describing its duration by another form of 
expression. 

" If thy hand offend thee cut it off: it is 



814 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



better for thee to enter into life maimed 
than having two hands to go into hell, into 
the fire that never shall be quenched ; where 
the worm dieth not and the fire is not quench- 
ed." Mark ix. 43, 44. 

What the two former texts call everlast- 
ing fire, this calls, " the fire that never shall 
be quenched," showing that everlasting has 
the sense of endless, for fire which never 
shall be quenched must be endless. 

This is still further confirmed, by the ad 
ditioual description of the punishment as a 
worm that dieth not. The only object of 
this expressive figure, must be to represent 
the punishment as endless. The fire and 
the worm are terms used to express the pun- 
ishment of sinners, and it makes no differ 
ence in this argument, whether or not we 
understand what they are, no matter whether 
they are material or immaterial, they are 
endless. 

" Verily I say unto you, all sins shall be 
forgiven unto men, and blasphemies where- 
withsoever they shall blaspheme : but he 
that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost 
hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of 
eternal damnation. Mark iii. 28, 29. 

Here the sinner is threatened with eternal 
damnation, aionion kriseos, eternal condem- 
nation or punishment. The sinner has never 
forgiveness, which makes his guilt and con- 
demnation endless. 

A parallel text makes it yet stronger if 
possible. 

" And whosoever speaketh a word against 
the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him : 
but whosoever speaketh a word against the 
Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, 
neither in this world, neither in the Vforld 
to come." Matt. xii. 32. 

In the preceding text it is affirmed that 
the sinner " hath never forgiveness ;" in 
this it is said his sin " shall not be for- 
given him." In the former he is declared 
to be " in danger of eternal damnation ;" in 
this his pardon is denied through all future 
time, which makes his guilt and condemna- 
tion eternal. " Neither in this world, neither 
in the world to come," includes all duration. 



2 Thes. i. 6-10 : ''Seeing it is a righteous 
thing with God to recompense tribulation 
to them that trouble you ; And to you who 
are troubled, rest with us ; when the Lord 
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his 
mighty angels, In flaming fire, taking ven- 
geance on them that know not God, and that 
obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus 
Christ ; Who shall be punished with ever- 
lasting destruction from the presence of the 
Lord, and from the glory of his powci; ; 
When he shall come to be glorified in his 
saints, and to be admired in all them that 
believe." 

Here sinners are threatened with a pun- 
ishment which is called everlasting destruc- 
tion. The word everlastiiig can be applied 
to it for no purpose but to describe its du- 
ration ; and the connection, and all the cir- 
cumstances, go to show that it is used in no 
qualified or limited sense, as a slight view 
of the subject will demonstrate. It is to be 
inflicted when the Lord Jesus shall be re- 
vealed from heaven in flaming fire, with his 
mighty angels. 

It will be inflicted when the Lord Jesus 
shall come to be glorified in his saints, by 
which it is connected in point of time, with 
the final salvation of believers. 

Jude 7 : " Even as Sodom and Gomorrah,, 
and the cities about them, in like manner 
giving themselves over to fornication, and 
going after strange flesh, are set forth for an 
example, suffering the vengeance of eternal 
fire." 

Here the same word is rendered eternal, 
and sinners, who were consumed out of the 
earth, about two thousand years before, are 
said to be still suffering the vengeance of 
eternal fire. The words " are set forth for 
an example, suffering the vengeance of eter- 
nal fire," includes their present position, at 
the time the Apostle wrote. 

If it be said that it is termed eternal fire, 
because the destruction of the cities was 
final, they never being rebuilt, then to make 
the punishment of the wicked by eternal 
fire, in the same sense, it must inflict on them 
ndless ruin. 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



315 



4. A general analysis of the use of the 
word in the Ne^v Testament, will show that 
it is employed almost exclusively to express 
endless duration. 

The word aionios is found seventy-one 
times in the Greek Testament. 

In forty-four cases out of the seventy-one, 
it is joined with zoee, life, zoeen aionion, 
literally, life eternal, but is sometimes ren- 
dered everlasting, making life everlasting. 

In thirty of the forty-four texts, it is 
translated eternal, making eternal life, and 
life eternal ; and in fourteen it is rendered 
everlasting, making everlasting life, and life 
everlasting. In all of these forty-four cases 
it is clearly used to express endless duration. 
If it does not express endless duration in 
these texts, there is no promise of eternal 
life in the New Testament. 

In three texts it is joined with doxa, glory, 
and is rendered eternal, making eternal glo- 
ry. These texts are as follows : 

'' A far more exceeding and eternal weight 
of glory." 2 Cor. iv. 17. 

*' That they may also obtain the salvation 
which is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory." 
2 Tim. ii. 10. 

" The God of grace hath called us unto 
eternal glory by Christ Jesus." 1 Peter v. 
10. 

In these three texts the word clearly meana 
endless. 

In two texts tlie word is applied to God, 
as follows : 

" According to the commandment of the 
everlasting God." Rom. xvi. 26. 

" Who only hath immortality, dwelling in 
the light which no man can approach unto, 
whom no man hath seen or can see, to him 
be honor and power everlasting^ 1 Tim. 
vi. 16. 

In these two texts it will not be pretend- 
ed that the word is used in a limited sense. 

Once it is applied to the Spirit, in which 
it is affirmed that " Christ through the eter- 
nal Spirit offered himself without spot to 
God." Heb. ix. 14. 

Once it is applied to the kingdom of 
Christ, thus : 



" The everlasting kingdom of our Lord 
and Saviour, Jesus Christ." 2 Peter i. 11. 
Once it is applied to redemption, thus : 
" By his own blood he entered into the 
holy place, having obtained eternal redemp- 
tion for us." Heb. ix. 12. 

Once it is applied to salvation, thus : 
'' He became the author of eternal sal- 
vation to all them that believe." Heb. v. 9. 
Once it is applied to inheritance, thus : 
Heb. ix. 15 : " And for this cause he is 
the Mediator of the New Testament, that 
by means of death, for the redemption of 
the transgressions that were under the first 
Testament, they which are called might re- 
ceive the promise of eternal inheritance." 
Once it is applied to covenant, thus : 
Heb. xiii. 20 : '' Now the God of peace, 
that brought again from the dead our 
Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the 
sheep, through the blood of the everlasting 
covenant." 

Once it is applied to things unseen, thus : 
2 Cor. iv. 18 : " While we look not at the 
things which are seen, but at the things 
which are not seen : for the things which 
are seen are temporal ; but the things whifch 
are not seen are eternal" 

Once it is applied to house as the saints' 
future home, thus : 

2 Cor. V. 1 : " For we know that if our 
earthly house of this tabernacle were dis- 
solved, we have a building of God, a house 
not made with hands, eternal in the heav- 
ens." 

Once it is applied to consolation, thus : 
2 Thes. ii. 16 : " Now our Lord Jesus 
Christ himself, and, God, even our Father, 
which hath loved us, and hath given us e-yer- 
lasting consolation and good hope through 
grace." 

Once it is applied to the Gospel, thus : 
Rev. xiv. 6 : " And I saw another angel 
fly in the midst of heaven, having the ever- 
lasting Gospel to preach unto them that 
dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and 
kindred, and tongue, and people." 

In these last fifteen texts, the sense is end- 
less. These fifteen added to the former for- 



316 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[BOOK II. 



ty-four, make fifty-nine cases out of seventy- 
one, in which the word is used to express 
endless duration. 

This leaves but twelve cases to be ex- 
amined, which may soon be disposed of. 

In seven of the remaining twelve texts, it 
is applied to the punishment of the wicked, 
and these are the texts which have already 
been examined, save one of them, which was 
not quoted. 

For the sake of making the analysis per- 
fect, all the texts shall be here repeated, in 
which the word aionios is applied to the 
punishment of the wicked. 

Matt, xviii. 8 : " Wherefore, If thy hand 
or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and 
cast them from thee : it is better for thee to 
enter into life halt or maimed, rather than 
having two hands, or two feet, to be cast 
into everlasting fire." 

Matt. XXV. 41 : " Then shall he say also 
unto them on the left hand, Depart from me 
ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for 
the devil and his angels. 

Yerse 46 : " And these shall go away in- 
to everlasting punishment : but the right- 
eous into life eternal." 

Mark iii. 29 : " But he that shall blas- 
pheme against the Holy Ghost hath never 
forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal dam- 
nation." 

2 Thes. i. 9 : " Who shall be punished 
with everlasting destruction from the pres- 
ence of the Lord, and from the glory of his 
power." 

Heb. vi. 2 : " Of the doctrine of bap- 
tisms, and of laying on of hands, and of 
the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal 
judgment.'" 

This last text is the only one which has 
not already been examined, which may be 
properly noticed at this point. There is 
nothing in the connection to limit the mean- 
ing of the word rendered eternal. 

This eternal judgment, is placed after the 
resurrection of the dead, which throws 
the time of judgment into the eternal world. 

But the connection with judgment, which 
the word here sustains, does not weaken, but 



rather strengthens its force. The original 
is, krimatos aionion, literally, judgment eter- 
nal. 

The word hrima or krimatos, in the form 
it is used in the text, occurs twenty-nine 
times in the New Testament, and is trans- 
lated as follows : 

Sixteen times it is translated judgment. 
Of the other thirteen texts, in six it is trans- 
lated damnation, in six it is translated con- 
demnation, and in one it is translated con- 
demned. 

From this analysis of the use of the word, 
it is seen that eternal judgment, is equal to 
eternal damnation, or eternal condemnation. 

The remaining text of the seven in which 
aionios is applied to the punishment of sin- 
ners, is Jude 7 : " Even as Sodom and Go- 
morrah, and the cities about them, in like 
manner giving themselves over to fornica- 
tion, and going after strange flesh, are set 
forth for an example, suffering the ven- 
geance of eternal fire." 

This has been examined, and it has been 
shown that in the seven texts, in which the 
word is applied to punishment, there is noth- 
ing to limit its meaning, and that upon the 
face of these texts, it appears to be used in 
its full signification of endless. The only 
pretended defense against all this, is, that 
the word is sometimes applied to things 
which are not endless. Let the reader now 
give his attention to this defense, as a closing 
point of the argument. 

The defense necessarily rests upon five 
instances of the use of the word, for there 
are only five texts left, in which it occurs 
in the New Testament, out of seventy-one, 
which presents a proportion of sixty-six to 
five. 

Suppose then we admit the entire ground 
of the defense, and the case will stand 
thus : 

The word, aionios, rendered eternal, and 
everlasting, is used seventy-one times in the 
New Testament. In fifty-nine texts it is 
used to express the endless happiness of the 
saints, the endless duration of the heavenly 
world, and the eternity of God, and such 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



317 



like endless objects, in every one of which 
fifty- nine texts it clearly expresses endless 
duration. In seven texts it is used to ex- 
press tlie duration of punishment, with no- 
thing in the connection to limit its sense, 
but much which requires that it be under- 
stood in its full sense of endless. But there 
are five texts in which it is used in a re- 
stricted sense, being applied to what is not 
endless. Now, an appeal is taken to your 
good sense, if the fact that the word is used 
in a limited sense, five times, while it is used 
sixty-six times in an endless sense, can jus- 
tify humanity in grounding its eternal in- 
terests upon the assumption that the word 
aionios, eternal and everlasting, does not ex- 
press endless duration ? But let us examine 
the five texts. 

If it should yet appear that the remain- 
ing five texts, are not clearly limited in their 
sense, the defense on the negative will cease 
to exist. 

These texts are as follows : — 

Luke xvi. 9 : " And I say unto you, Make 
to yourselves friends of the mammon of un- 
righteousness ; that, when ye fail, they may 
receive you into everlasting habitations." 

This text most probably refers to the fu- 
ture state, and if so, everlasting habitations, 
means heaven. It is so understood by the 
best critics who regard the expression, 
" they may receive you into everlasting 
habitations," as a mere Hebrewism, for ye 
shall be received.. To > say the least, it is 
very far from being clear that the word is 
here used in a limited sense. 

Eom. xvi. 25, 26 : " Now to him that is 
of power to establish you according to my 
Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, 
(according to the revelation of the mystery, 
which was kept secret since the world began, 
But now is made manifest, and by the Scrip- 
tures of the prophets, according to the com- 
mandment of the everlasting God, made 
known to all nations for the obedience of 
faith.") 

In this text aionios, is rendered world, in 
the expression, " which was kept secret 
since the world bearan." It is admitted that 



the word is here used in a limited sense, yet 
here some may doubt Dr. McK night ren- 
ders, " since the world began," " in the times 
of the ages." Such a use of the word can- 
not be relied upon to determine the true 
sense to be limited, when it is used in the 
same connection, to express the eternity of 
God, as it is in the expression, according to 
the commandment of the everlasting God." 

2 Tim. i. 9 : '' Who hath saved us, and 
called us with a holy calling, not according 
to our works, but according to his own pur- 
pose and grace, which was given us in Christ 
Jesus before the world began." 

Here the word is again translated world, 
in the expression, " before the world began." 
If world be understood here, to be this ma- 
terial creation, before the world, must have 
been in eternity, and the allusion is to God's 
eternal purpose. Br. McKnight renders it, 
" before the times of the ages." It may 
signify the Jewish dispensation, in which 
case it is used in a limited sense, but it is 
too uncertain, and too far aside from the 
common use of the term, to settle its limited 
sense firm enough to venture eternal in- 
terests upon it. 

Titus, i. 2 : " In hope of eternal life, which 
God, that cannot lie, promised before the 
loorld began." 

The sense of this text is doubtless the 
same as the preceding. Both are a depart- 
ure from the general usage of the Greek 
language. This is clearly stated by Br. 
McKnight, in his note on the passage. His 
language is as follows : " Suppose the word 
in this clause, to signify eternal, the literal 
translation of the passage would be, before 
eternal times. But this being a contradic- 
tion in terms, our translators, contrary to 
the propriety of the Greek language, have 
rendered it, " before the world began." It 
is clear that such exceptions to the general 
rules of a language, cannot be relied upon, 
as establishing a sense contrary to the sense 
in which words are so generally used, as 
this word has been pronounced to be used 
to express endless duration, namely, in a pro- 
portion of sixty-six to five. 



318 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book n. 



There is but one more text and tlie ana- 
lysis will be finished. 

Phile. 15 : " For perhaps he therefore 
departed for a season, that thou shouldst re- 
ceive him forever." 

Some may understand this in a limited 
sense. It will admit of but two construc- 
tions. If it be used in a limited sense, it 
must denote the period of their natural 
lives. That thou shouldst receive him while 
you shall both live. If this is not the sense, 
then it must be used in an unlimited sense 
and refer to the conversion and salvation of 
Onesimus as an everlasting benefit. He re- 
ceived him as a Christian brother in the 
fellowship and communion of the Gospel 
forever, which shall last, world without end. 
This appears to be the more reasonable con- 
struction. 

The argument has now reached its close 
and may be summed up thus : 

1. The word used to express the duration 
of punishment, expresses endless duration 
by its own proper grammatical sense. 

2. This word expresses endless duration 
more forcibly than any other word in the 
Greek language, it being the strongest word 
that language has to express absolute eter- 
nal duration. 

3. There is nothing in the connection 
when it is used to express the duration of 
punishment, which limits its sense, or in the 
slightest degree proves that it is not used in 
its strongest sense of endless. 

4. An analysis of the use of the word in 
the New Testament, shows that it is the 
word used almost exclusively by the in- 
spired writers when they wished to express 
endless duration, and that it is very rarely, 
if ever, used in any other sense. In sev- 
enty-one cases, it is used clearly and unde- 
niably to express endless duration, fifty-nine 
times ; in seven instances it is applied to 
the punivshment of sinners, with nothing 
which requires a limited construction, but. 
much which demands that it be understood 
in the sense of endless ; and in the five re- 
maining cases the sense may ^'^ regarded as 
doubtful, and may signify a limited or un- 



limited period. Upon this state of the ar- 
gument, an appeal is made to the common 
sense of mankind, if it be wise and safe to 
rest an eternal interest upon the assump- 
tion that aionios, rendered eternal, and 
everlasting, does not express endless dura- 
tion. 

II. The Scriptures describe the punish- 
ment of the wicked, so in contrast with the 
salvation of the righteous as to prove that 
those who are punished cannot be saved, 
and the conclusion is that their punishment 
must be endless. 

Matt. XXV. 46 : " These shall go away 
into everlasting punishment, but the righte- 
ous into life eternal." Do those who are 
said to go into everlasting punishment, go 
also into life eternal ? Just as consistently 
might it be argued that those who go into 
life eternal, will also go into everlasting 
punishment. If then those who go away 
into everlasting punishment, do not go into 
everlasting life, the contrast between the 
respective dooms of the righteous and wick- 
ed, is marked as wide as the space between 
heaven and hell, and the punishment of the 
one will be as lasting as the eternal life of 
the other. 

John iii. 15 : " God so loved the world 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
whosoever believeth in him should not per- 
ish but have everlasting life." Here per- 
ishmg stands opposed to everlasting life, in 
a manner which deafly proves that those 
who perish do not have everlasting life. 

Eom. ii. 6, 7, 8 : "Who will render to 
every man according to his deeds ; to them 
who by patient continuance in well doing, 
seek for glory and honor and immortality, 
eternal life. But unto them that are con- 
tentious and do not obey the truth, but 
obey unrighteousness, indignation and 
wrath." 

1. A contrast is clearly drawn between 
the respective rewards of the saint and sin- 
ner : God " will render to every man ac- 
cording to his deeds ;" and this reward will 
be to the righteous, " eteritol life,'' and to 
the wicked, " indio-nation and wrath.'' Now 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



319 



it cannot with any degree of propriety be 
maintained that those who are rewarded 
with indignation and wrath will also be 
rewarded with eternal life. 

2. That this whole subject relates to the 
future destinies of^ men appears, from the 
phraseology of the text itself. To whom 
will God render eternal life ? " To them 
who by patient continuance in well doing 
seek for glory and honor and immortality. 
But it cannot be supposed that any en- 
lightened Christian seeks for immortality 
as a portion attainable in this world, and as 
they seek for glory and honor and immor- 
tality in the world to come, it must be there 
also that the wicked will receive indigna- 
tion and wrath, and of course they cannot 
have the eternal life. 

Eom. vi. 23 : '' The wages of sin is 
death ; but the gift of God is eternal life, 
through Jesus Christ our Lord." It is not 
necessary to pause to discuss the question 
what is meant by death, it is opposed to 
eternal life, which is salvation, and those 
who enjoy the life will not suffer the death 
and those who suffer the death, cannot en- 
joy the life, and their loss must be endless. 

Many more Scriptures might be quoted 
to the same effect, but it is not necessary, 
As the salvation of the righteous and the 
punishment of the wicked are presented in 
contrast, the saved cannot bear the punish- 
ment, and the punished cannot be saved, 
and those who are not saved must endure 
endless punishment. There is no possible 
manner of escaping this conclusion, only 
by saying, as some have, that sinners 
are punished and saved too. This is im 
possible. 

Salvation implies a time of salvation, in 
which it is enjoyed, and punishment sup- 
poses a time of punishment, in which it is 
endured. Now as salvation and punish- 
ment are both states which imply lapse of 
time, it must follow that if sinners are 
saved and punished too, they must be saved 
before they are punished, at the time they 
are punished, or after they are punisTied ; 
neither of which can be true. 



1. The sinner cannot be saved a,nd then 
punished. If the sinner can be first saved 
and then punished, it follows that salvation 
is no preventive of damnation, or security 
against it. 

2. The sinner cannot be saved and pun- 
ished at the same time. If the sinner be 
saved and punished at the same time, then 
salvation and damnation are made to meet, 
at the same time, in the same subject, and 
exist together. Salvation in such case, as 
before remarked, can be no security against 
damnation, and damnation, in turn, can be 
no preventive of salvation. 

3. The sinner cannot receive all the pun- 
ishment he deserves first, and then be saved. 

That sinners cannot be punished all they 
deserve, and then be saved, must appear 
from the following considerations : 

(1.) The sinner cannot receive all the 
punishment he deserves until a space of 
time shall have elapsed, after he shall have 
ceased to commit sin, and can never cease 
to commit sin while he is in a state of con- 
demnation and punishment ; he cannot, 
therefore, receive all the punishment he de- 
serves prior to his being saved. 

(2.) If it were possible for man to suffer 
all that his sins deserve, he would then 
stand in no need of salvation, in any con- 
sistent sense of the term. From what can 
men be saved, after they have suffered all 
the punishment they deserve ? When the 
last thunderbolt of wrath divine shall have 
spent its force, and the storm of vengeance 
shall have gone by, will men still be lost ? 
When the consequence of man's own mis- 
conduct shall have entirely subsided, will 
he still be lost so as to need salvation ? As 
well might it be said that man was created 
lost ! That he came lost from the hands of 
his divine author. 

III. The Scriptures teach that salvation 
is conditional, and therefore may be lost, by 
a non-compliance with the terms on which 
it is proffered. It cannot be denied that 
whatever is conditional may be lost, and the 
loss of salvation, in view of the immortality 
of the soul, involves endless punishment. 



320 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



1. The Scriptures speak on this subject 
too plain to be misunderstood or misapplied. 
A few quotations, howover, must suffice. 

Matt. xix. 16, 17: ''And behold one 
came and said unto him, good master, what 
good thing shall I do that I may have 
eternal life ? And he said unto him, if thou 
wilt enter into life keep the commandments." 
Mark xvi. 16 : "He that believeth and is 
baptised shall be saved, and he that believ- 
eth not shall be damned." John iii. 36 : 
" He that believeth on the Son hath ever- 
lasting life, and he that believeth not the 
Son shall not see life." John vi. 40 : " This 
is the will of him that sent me, that every 
one, which seeth the Son and believeth on 
him, may have everlasting life." Verse 47: 
" Yerily, verily I say unto you, he that be- 
lieveth on me hath everlasting life." John 
V. 40 : " Ye will not come unto me that 
ye might have life." Eev. ii. 10 : " Be thou 
faithful unto death and I will give thee a 
crown of life." Eev. iii. 5 : *' He that over- 
cometh shall be clothed in white raiment, 
and I will not blot out his name out of the 
book of life, but I will confess his name be- 
fore my Father and before his angels." 
Yerse 21 : " To him that overcometh will 
I grant to sit with me on my throne, even 
as I also overcame and am set down with 
my Father in his throne." 

These texts, with many more which 
might be quoted, prove beyond a doubt, 
that salvation is conditional. 

2. If salvation is not conditional, then it 
cannot be the sinner's own fault that he is 
not saved now, nor can any reason be giv- 
en why he is not now saved, unless it be 
said that God is not able or willing to save 
him. If salvation is not conditional, it fol- 
lows that the sinner can do nothing to in- 
duce salvation, on one hand, or to prevent 
it on the other ; it cannot therefore be his 
fault that he does not now enjoy the salva- 
tion of God. 

3. If salvation is not conditional, and yet 
certain, it follows, that to be the greatest 
sinner, is to secure the greatest salvation. 

lY. The Scriptures teach that there is a 



possibility and even danger of coming short 
of salvation. 

Matt. vii. 13, 14 : " Enter ye in at the 
straight gate, for wide is the gate and 
broad is the way that leadeth to destruc- 
tion, and many there be tRat go in thereat ; 
because straight is the gate and narrow is 
the way that leadeth unto life, and few there 
be that find it." 2 Cor. vi. 1 : " We then 
as workers together with him, beseech you 
also that ye receive not the grace of God 
in vain." 1 Cor. ix. 27 : " But I keep un- 
der my body and bring it into subjection, 
lest after I have preached to others, I my- 
self should be a castaway." Heb. iv. 1 : 
" Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being 
left us of entering into his rest, any of you 
should seem to come short of it." 

These texts teach beyond a doubt that 
there is danger of coming short of salvation, 
and to come short of salvation, involves the 
idea of endless punishment. 

Y. The Scriptures teach that sinners can 
and do actually resist the means which God 
employs to bring them to repentance and 
salvation, and if the means of salvation are 
resisted, their object is defeated and the 
unyielding soul cannot be saved, and end- 
less punishment is the necessary conse- 
quence. 

1. The sinner resists the force of truth, 
and thereby renders the word preached in- 
effectual, so far as any saving benefit accru- 
ing to himself, is concerned. The prophet 
exclaims, 

Isa. liii. 1 : " "Who hath believed our re- 
port, and to whom is the arm of the Lord 
revealed ?" Matt. xiii. 58 : " And he did 
not many mighty works there because of 
their unbelief." Matt, xxiii. 37 : " How 
often would I have gathered thy children 
together but ye would not." The Apostle 
declares, Heb. iv. 2 : " The word preached 
did not profit them, not being mixed with 
faith in them that heard it." iii. 16 : " For 
some when they had heard did provoke." 
Acts xiii. 46 : " Then Paul and Barnabas 
said, it was necessary that the word of God 
should first have been spoken to you, but 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



321 



seeing you put it from you and judge your- 
selves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we 
turn to the Gentiles." Here the unbelieving 
Jews are said to put the word of God from 
them, which clearly proves that they re- 
sisted its influence. 2 Tim. iii. 8 : " Now 
as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses so 
do these resist the truth." 

These quotations clearly show that sin- 
ners do resist the force of divine truth as 
brought to view in the Gospel of the Son 
of God. 

2. Men resist the strivings of the Holy 
Spirit. Tsa. Ixiii. 10 : " But they rebelled 
and vexed his Holy Spirit." 1 Thes. v. 19 : 
" Quench not the spirit." Eph. iv. 30 : 
" Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God." Acts 
vii. 51 : " Ye do always resist the Holy 
Ghost." These quototions show that men 
vex, quench, grieve, and resist the Holy 
Spirit. 

3. Men resist the influence of divine 
mercy. This is implied in the preceding re- 
marks, for as men resist the force of truth 
and the influence of the Spirit, in so doing, 
they resist the influence of divine mercy ; 
for the Gospel, and the influence of the Spirit 
are mercy's own gifts. But a few other in- 
stances shall be adduced. Isa. v. 4 : " What 
could have been done more to my vineyard 
that I have not done in it ? Wherefore 
when I looked that it should bring forth 
grapes, brought it forth wild grapes." The 
dying prayer of our crucified Redeemer for 
his wicked murderers, Luke xxiii. 34, was 
a most striking display of divine mercy and 
compassion, and yet it failed to melt down 
their hard hearts. 

That sinners do resist the influence of 
divine mercy, and rebel against the filial re- 
gard of the hand that formed them, God 
himself bears testimony while he calls hea- 
ven and earth to witness the astonishing 
fact. Isa. i. 2 : " Hear, heavens ! and 
give ear, earth ! for the Lord hath spoken ; 
I have nourished and brought up children 
and they have rebelled against me." 

4. Sinners sometimes resist and harden 
themselves under the dispensation of divine 

21 



punishment. Eev. xvi. 9 : " And men were 
scorched with great heat, and blasphemed 
the name of God which hath power over 
these plagues, and they repented not to 
give him glory." Yerse 11 : " And men 
blasphemed the God of heaven because of 
their pains, and repented not of their deeds." 
Yerse 21 : " And men blasphemed God be- 
cause of the plague of the hail, for the 
plague thereof was exceeding great." 

YL The Scriptures teach that there will 
come a time when it will be too late to seek 
and obtain salvation. Gen. vi. 3 : " And 
the Lord said, my Spirit shall not always 
strive with man." Psa. xxxii. 6 : "For 
this shall every one that is godly pray unto 
thee in a time when thou mayest be found." 
This text clearly implies that there will 
come a time when God will not be found ; 
hence, we read, Isa. Iv. 6 : " Seek ye the 
Lord while he may be found, call ye upon 
him while he is near." An exortation to 
seek God, " while he may be found," most 
clearly supposes that a time is coming when 
he will not be found ; and to " call ivhile he 
is near,'' supposes that a time is coming 
when he will not be near. In accordance 
with this we read, Prov. i 24, 26, 28 : " Be- 
cause I have called and ye refused, I have 
stretched out my hand and no man regarded ; 
I also will laugh at your calamity, I will 
mock when your fear cometh ; then shall they 
call upon me but I will not answer, they 
shall seek me early but shall not find me." 
Chap. V. 11 : " And thou mourn at the last, 
when thy flesh and thy body is consumed." 
Isa. xxxviii. 18 : " For the grave cannot 
praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee : . 
they that go down into the pit cannot hope 
for thy truth." Matt. xxv. 11. 12 : " Af- 
terward came also the other virgins, saying, . 
Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered 
and said, verily I say unto you, I know you. 
not." Luke xiii. 25 : " When once the 
master of the house is risen up and hath 
shut to the door, and ye begin to stand with- 
out and to knock at the door, saying Lord,, 
Lord, open unto us, and he shall say unto 
you, I know ye not whence ye are." 2. Cor. 



322 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



vi. 2 : " For he saitb, I have heard thee in 
a time acceptable, and in the day of salva- 
tion have I succored thee ; behold, now is 
the accepted time, behold, now is the day of 
salvation." This most clearly implies that 
the accepted time and day of salvation are 
limited, and that a time is coming which 
will not be accepted, and which will not be 
a day of salvation." Heb. iii. 13 : '• But 
exhort one another while it is called to-day, 
lest any of you be hardened through the de- 
ceitfulness of sin." 

Yerse 15 : " While it is said, to-day, if 
you will hear his voice, harden not your 
hearts as in the provocation." 

By the expression '• to-day,^' in these pas- 
sages, is understood the present state of 
Gospel priviliges and gracious overtures, 
in opposition to the state which is to suc- 
ceed. 

YII. The Scriptures absolutely deny sal- 
vation to certain persons and characters. 

Matt. V. 20 : " For I say unto you, that 
except your righteousness exceed the righl> 
eousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye 
shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of 
Heaven." 

It is clear that some may not exceed the 
Scribes and Pharisees in righteousness, or 
this text never would have been uttered, and 
to such the text absolutely denies salvation. 

Matt. viii. 11 : " Many shall come from 
the east and west, and shall sit down with 
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the 
Kingdom of Heaven, but the children of the 
Kingdom shall be cast out." 

This text was spoken hundreds of years 
after Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were dead, 
after they had dwelt for ages in the future 
world, while the collection from the east and 
west to sit down with the Patriarchs in the 
Kingdom of. Heaven, is described as an 
event yet to take place ; therefore, the King- 
dom of Heaven in this text must refer to 
■the future world. 

Matt. xii. 32 : " And whosoever speaketh 
a word against the Son of Man, it shall be for- 
given him ; but whosoever speaketh against 
the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven 



him, neither in this world, neither in the 
ivorld to come." 

Mark iii. 29 : " But he that shall blas- 
pheme against the Holy Ghost hath never 
forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal dam- 
nation." 

Let it be remarked that the sin here spo- 
ken of, by some called the unpardonable sin, 
consisted in attributing to the agency of the 
devil, the miracles which Jesus Christ 
wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost. 
That this sin was committed by some of the 
Jews, there can be no doubt. Of these it is 
said, they shall not be forgiven, neither in 
this world, nor in the world to come. Now, 
without forgiveness, there can be no salva- 
tion. 

Luke xiv. 24 : " For I say unto you, that 
none of those men which were bidden, shall 
taste of my supper." 

This relates to the Gospel supper, or pro- 
vision which the Gospel contains for the 
salvation of sinners. This supper is a feast, 
consisting of the blessings which the Gospel 
proifers to all. Now, of certain persons it 
is said, '' none of these men which were bid- 
den shall taste of my supper." 

John iii. 3 : "Except a man be born again 
he cannot see the kingdom of God." 

This text absolutely denies salvation to 
all such as are not born again. The text 
clearly implies that men may, or may not be 
born again ; and that if they are not, they 
cannot see the kingdom of God, in which 
case they cannot be saved. 

John iii. 36 : " He that believeth on the 
Son hath everlasting life, and he that be- 
lieveth not the Son shall not see hfe." 

The unqualified declaration that certain 
characters shall not see life, forever and eter- 
nally seals them with the seal of death. 

John viii. 21 : " Then said Jesus again 
unto them, I go my way and ye shall seek 
me, and shall die in your sins ; whither I 
go ye cannot come." 

Where did Jesus Christ go ? He went 
to Heaven, there can be no doubt in the 
mind of any ; hence unbelievers who die in 
their sins, can never go to Heaven, for to 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



323 



such Christ says, " whither I go ye cannot 
come." 

Gah V. 21 : '• Envyings, murders, drunk- 
enness, revelhngs, and such like, of the which 
I tell you before, as I have also told you in 
time past, that they which do such things, 
shall not inherit the kingdom of God." 

It is worthy of remark, that, in this text, 
the verb which expresses the forbidden con- 
duct, is in the present tense, " they which 
do such things," while the verb which ex- 
presses the punishment, is in the future tense, 
" shall not inherit y" not, do not inherit. 
This clearly marks the sense thus : those 
who do such things here shall not inherit the 
kingdom of God hereafter. 

Eph. V. 5 : " For this ye know that no 
whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor cov- 
etous man, who is an idolater, hath any in- 
heritance in the kingdom of God." 

YIII. The Scriptures represent the pun- 
ishment of the wicked as their end, their last 
state j and their portion. 

Ps. Ixxiii. 12 : *' Behold these are the 
ungodly, who prosper in the world." Of 
these characters the Psalmist adds, verse 
18, 19, " Thou casteth them down into des- 
truction — they are utterly consumed with 
terrors." Note, this is their end which the 
Psalmist learned in the sanctuary of God, 
and if their end is to be cast down into des- 
truction, and to be utterly consumed with 
terrors, they cannot be saved. 

Psa. xvii. 14 : " Men of the world which 
have their portion in this life." 

If then certain of the wicked have their 
portion in this life, in distinction from others 
who do not have their portion in this life, 
they can have no part in the inheritance that 
is incorruptible. If these persons are to 
have eternal hfe, then, that would be their 
portion, in which case they would not have 
their portion in this world. 

Jer. xvii. 11 : " He that getteth riches 
and not by right, shall leave them in the 
midst of his days, and at his end shall be a 
fool." 

If he is saved at last he will not be 
a fool at his end, but will be " wise unto sal 



vation." To him are applicable those strong 
words of the poet : 

" cursed lust of gold, when for thy sake 
The wretch throws up his interests in both 

worlds, 
First starved in this, then damned in that 

to come." 

Matt. xxiv. 51 : " And shall appoint him 
his portion with the'hypocrites." 

Luke xii. 46 : " And will appoint him his 
portion with the unbelievers." 

Here the punishment of the unfaithful is 
said to be their portion ; and hence they can- 
not be heir to eternal life. 

2 Cor. xi. 13, 15 : " For such are false 
Apostles, deceitful workers, whose end shall 
be according to their works." 

This text certainly predicts no good of 
these false teachers, but evil. Their works 
are bad, and their end is to be according to 
their works ; their end therefore must be 
bad, hence, they cannot be saved, for salva- 
tion would be a good and glorious end. 

Phil. iii. 18, 19 : " Enemies of the cross 
of- Christ, whose end is destrtcction.^' 

No man, made finally holy and happy, 
can have his end in destruction. 

Heb. vi. 8 : " But that which beareth 
thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh 
unto cursing, whose end is to be burned." 

This was spoken of apostates, who should 
fall away after they had been made parta- 
kers of the Holy Ghost, and if their end 
is to be burned, salvation cannot be their 
end. 

IX. The Scriptures speak of rewards 
and punishments, in a manner which imply 
that the final punishment of the wicked will 
be endless. 

Matt. V. 8 : " Blessed are the pure in 
heart, for they shall see God." 

This text most clearly speaks of the fu- 
ture blessedness of the saints. Note, the 
condition, purity of heart, is in the present 
tense, and the blessing is in the future tense. 
" Blessed are the pure in heart," those who 



are now pure in heart, " for they shall see 
God," hereafter, not, do now see God. This 
implies that the impure in heart will not see 



324 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



God. Matt. X. 39 : " He that findeth his 
life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life 
for my sake shall find it." 

Mark viii. 35 : " For whosoever will save 
his life shall lose it ; but whosoever shall 
lose his life, for my sake and the Gospel's, 
the same shall save it." 

Luke ix. 24 : " For whosoever will save 
his life shall lose it ; but whosoever will lose 
his life for my sake, the same shall save it." 

John xii. 25 : " He that loveth his life 
shall lose it ; and he that hateth his life in 
this world shall keep it unto life eternal." 

Here are two kinds of life and death re- 
ferred to ; the first is the life and death of 
the body, or natural life and death ; the sec- 
ond is the life and death of the soul, or 
moral or spiritual life and death. Here 
then are two cases ; one person thinks more 
of this life than he does of the life to come, 
and the other thinks more of the life to come 
than he does of the present life. One man 
is said to preserve his life unto life eternal 
and another, is said to lose his life, the same 
which the other preserves unto life eternal 
by endeavoring to save his present life. 

Matt. xiii. 47, 48, 49 : " Again the King- 
dom of Heaven is like unto a net that was 
cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind 
which, when it was full, they drew to shore, 
and sat down and gathered the good into 
vessels, but cast the bad away ; so shall it 
be at the end of the world." 

This certainly implies the doctrine in 
question. Note, some are good and others 
are bad, the good are saved, and the bad cast 
away ; and all this is to take place at the 
end of the world. Now, unless being cast 
away, and being saved, mean the same thing, 
all cannot be saved. 

Matt. xxvi. 24 : " Wo unto the man by 
whom the Son of Man is betrayed ; it had 
been good for that man if he had not been 
born." The expression, " it had been good 
for that man if he had not been born," can 
mean nothing more nor less, than that it 
would have been better to have had no ex- 
istence, than to exist under the circumstan- 
ces of him by whom the Son of Man was 



betrayed ; which cannot be true of any one 
who shall be finally and eternally saved. 

Prov. xxix. 1 : " He that being often re- 
proved, hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly 
be destroyed, and that without remedy." 

If irremediable destruction implies end- 
less punishment, then it is implied in this 
text. 

2. Tim. iv. 7, 8 : "I have fought a good 
fight, I have finished my course, I have kept 
the faith ; henceforth there is laid up for 
me a crown of righteousness, which the 
Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at 
that day : and not to me, only, but unto all 
them also that love his appearing," 

1. Tim. vi. 12 : " Fight the good fight of 
faith, lay hold on eternal life." 

Here eternal life is represented as taken 
by the good fight of faith ; and yet it can- 
not be contended that all fight this good 
fight, for " all men have not faith." 

James ii. 13 : " He shall have judgment 
without mercy, that hath showed no mercy." 

If judgment without mercy implies the 
doctrine of endless punishment, then it is 
implied in this text. 

Rev. xxii. 19 : " And if any man shall 
take away from the words of the book of 
this prophecy, God shall take away his part 
out of the Book of life, and out of the holy 
city, and from the things which are written 
in this book." 

It must have been a possible case to 
" take away from the words of the book of 
this prophecy," or the individual who should 
do it would not have been threatened. Now, 
the person who should do this, is threatened 
with three evils, either of which implies end- 
less punishment. 

1. " God shall take away his part out of 
the book of life." God is represented as 
having a book of life, in which the names 
of all his children are written, by which cir- 
cumstance, of having the name written or 
not written in this book, the future desti- 
nies of all will be determined. In chap. xx. 
15, it is said, " whosoever was not found 
written in the book of life, was cast into the 
lake of fire." 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



325 



2. " God shall take Lis part out of the 
holy city." The holy city here is the same 
as that mentioned, chap. xxi. 1, 2 : " And 
I saw a new heaven and a new earth." 

"Whether this means the future abode of 
the saints, or the Gospel church, the result 
must be the same. He whose entire inter- 
est is taken out of either must be lost. 

3. " God shall take away his part out of 
the things which are written in this book." 
As this is a threatening, it relates to all the 
promissory portions of the book. Now, if 
salvation, heaven and eternal life, are writ- 
ten in this book, from all these the individual 
has his part taken, and must be forever lost. 

X. The nature of punishment, viewed in 
connection with the immutability of God, 
must render all punishment, inflicted by the 
decision of the last judgment, endless. 

1. The penalty of the divine law is, in 
itself, an endless curse. Death was the penal 
sanction of the first precept given to man, 
Gen. ii. 17 : " In the day thou eatest thereof, 
thou shalt surely die." 

Ezek. xviii. 20 : " The soul that sinneth 
it shall die." 

" The wages of sin is death." 
" To be carnally minded is 



Sin when it is finished 



Eom. vi. 23 

Rom. viii. 6 
death." 

James i. 15 
bringeth forth death." 

Now death, whether natural or moral, 
must be in its own nature endless. What 
is death ? It is the negation of life, the ab 
sence of that life to which it stands opposed 
If death is made to consist in moral deprav- 
ity, it is the negation of that holiness, that 
conformity to the divine will and likeness, 
which constitutes moral or spiritual life. If 
death is made to consist in the dissolution 
of the body, it is the negation of those vital 
energies which constitute natural or animal 
life. When a person dies morally or natu- 
rally, it is the principle or power of the op- 
posite life that is overcome ; life becomes 
extinct and death reigns. Now, when a per- 
son is dead, on this principle, self-resuscita- 
tion is utterly impossible ; life has become 
extinct, and nothing but death reigns and 



pervades the whole system ; hence, death 
left to the tendency of its own nature, must 
hold on to its subjects with an eternal grasp, 
unless it be said that death can produce 
life, or that inertia can produce animation ; 
for as there is nothing but death now per- 
vading the once animated sphere of the fal- 
len, the energies of life can move there no 
more forever, unless they can spring from 
death, or out of nothing rise ! We see then, 
that there is no way of being delivered 
from the penalty of the law, but by a par- 
don ; for when the penalty of the law takes 
effect in the death of the sinner, as death is 
in its own nature endless, holding the crimi- 
nal under its dominion, any subsequent de- 
liverance by the communication of hfe by 
God, from whom it must proceed, must be 
regarded in the light of a pardon, since in 
such case the offender does not endure all 
that the sentence imports ; death being end- 
less of itself. 

2. The sentence which will be passed up- 
on sinners, by the righteous judgment of 
God, at the last day, will be irrevocable. 
This must appear from a consideration of 
the immutability of God, the judge. Ira- 
mutability is that perfection of God, which 
renders him eternally unchangeable. The 
force of this is plain. No change by way 
of repentance and regeneration can take 
place in a sinner, after being condemned at 
the last judgment and sent to hell. The 
atonement or merits of Christ's death, and 
the advantages of his intercession, will, af- 
ter the day of Judgment, no longer be avail- 
able, and hence, all the benefits of the same, 
including the efficacy of prayer, and the 
agency of the Holy Ghost, will be forever 
lost. For God to condemn a sinner and 
send him to hell, at one time, and then re- 
voke the sentence and recall him from his 
infernal prison, while he is yet the same in 
moral character, is to act differently at dif- 
ferent times, in view of the same moral prin- 
ciples ; which implies change or mutability. 
The argument then stands thus : 
1st. That the penalty of the divine law 
which is death, is in itself an endless curse 



326 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



so as never to terminate of itself, but being 
left to its own tendency will hold on upon 
its subjects with an eternal grasp. 

2d. That the immutability of God, the 
judge of all, forbids the thought that the 
sentence will ever be revoked by the act of 
him whose word inflicted it. From these 
two points the conclusion is irresistible, that 
the sinner if condemned when judged at the 
last day, must remain under condemnation 
forever, world without end. 



SECTION IX. 

The Final Destiny of the Wicked contin- 
ued. — They will not he Annihilated. 

The real question at issue is, what is the 
penalty of the law ? Or, in other words, what 
is the punishment which the law of God in- 
flicts for sin ? If we can obtain the right 
answer to this question, we shall know 
w^hether or not the wicked will be annihila- 
ted ; for it may be presumed that no one 
will contend for annihilation, only upon the 
supposition that the loss of existence is the 
penalty of the law. If annihilation is the 
penalty which the law inflicts for sin, then 
those who are not saved by Christ will be 
annihilated ; but if the penalty of the law 
is not annihilation, then it cannot be main- 
tained that sinners will be annihilated 
"What then is the penalty of the law ? It 
must be one of the three following things : 

First, annihilation without conscious suf- 
fering : or, secondly, it must be conscious suf- 
fering and annihilation combined, consisting 
in part or both ; or, thirdly, it must be con- 
scious suffering without annihilation. 

It will not be denied that the penalty of 
the law must be found in one or the other of 
these propositions ; and if it can be proved 
not to be either the first or the second, it 
must follow that it is contained in the third. 

I. The penalty of the law is not annihila- 
tion without suffering, or the endurance of 
other evil than the simple loss of existence. 

1. The simple loss of existence cannot be 



a penalty or punishment, in the circum- 
stances of the sinner after the general resur- 
rection. All punishment must consist of 
pain or loss ; but the proposition that the 
penalty of the law is annihilation without 
conscious suffering, excludes the idea of pain., 
and the penalty is made to consist of loss 
only, the loss of existence. This, in the cir- 
cumstances of the sinner, is not, and cannot 
be a punishment. Punishment is an evil, 
but to have existence taken away is not an 
evil, in the circumstances of the sinner. 
The punishment of loss supposes deprivation 
of something valuable, but existence is not 
valuable in the circumstances of the sinner, 
and, therefore, deprivation of existence can- 
not be a punishment. To cease to exist, 
cannot be a punishment of loss, only so far 
as the existence taken away involves happi- 
ness, but the existence of sinners, who shall 
be such after the general resurrection, will 
not involve happiness, but misery, and, 
therefore, to cease to exist will not involve 
a loss of happiness, but an exemption from 
suffering, and cannot be a penalty or punish- 
ment. 

2. To suppose that the penalty of the 
law is annihilation without conscious suffer- 
ing, would not admit of any degrees of pun- 
ishment. There can be no degrees in anni- 
hilation ; each and all who are annihilated, 
must be punished, if it be called punishment, 
precisely with the same amount or degree 
of punishment. If the penalty be annihila- 
tion, none can be punished less than what 
amounts to annihilation, and none can be 
punished more than what amounts to anni- 
hilation, and annihilation admits of no de- 
grees. 

Some have sought to avoid this difficulty 
by making the degrees of punishment, con- 
sist in the different degrees of loss sustained 
by different persons, according to their re- 
spective degrees of capacity to enjoy happi- 
ness. This would have some force in it, did 
annihilation stand opposed to a happy ex- 
istence, but it does not, but is urged only in 
opposition to endless suffering, as shown 
above. Taking this view, as the mmd that 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



327 



is capable of a larger degree of happiness, 
must also be capable of a greater degree of 
misery, instead of sustaining a greater loss 
by annihilation, he is only saved from a 
greater amount of suffering. 

It is clear, then, that there can be no de- 
grees in punishment, if it be annihilation 
without conscious suffering, and this must 
of itself be fatal to the theory. Eeason 
teaches us that some are greater sinners 
than others, and justly deserve more punish- 
ment, and hence, if annihilation be the pun- 
ishment, some must suffer more than they de- 
serve, and others must suffer less than they 
deserve. Moreover, the Scriptures teach 
that there will be degrees of puuishment. 
Christ said to the Scribes and Pharisees, 
for a certain cause, " Therefore shall ye re- 
ceive the greater damnation." Matt, xxiii. 
14. 

" So he that knows his Master's will and 
does it not, shall be beaten with many 
stripes, while he that knows not his Mas- 
ter's will and does it not, shall be beaten 
with few stripes." See Luke xii. 47, 48. 

o. That the penalty of the law is not an- 
nihilation without suffering, is further proved 
by those Scriptures which teach directly 
• that sin is punished by suffering, or con- 
scious pain. These constitute a numerous 
class, but we need quote but a few. 

Matt. XXV. 30 : " And cast ye the un- 
profitable servant into outer darkness : there 
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 

Luke xiii. 28 : " There shall be weepin, 
and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see 
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the proph- 
ets in the kingdom of God, and you your- 
selves thrust out," 

Luke xvi. 23 : '' And in hell he lifted up 
bis eyes, being in torments." 

Rom. ii. 8, 9 : " Indignation and wrath, 
tribulation and anguish upon every soul of 
man that doth evil ; of the Jew first, and 
also of the Gentile." 

Luke xii. 47 : " And that servant which 
knew his Lord's will, and prepared not him- 
self, neither did according to his will, shall 
be beaten with many stripes." 



These texts prove beyond a doubt, that 
sin is punished with positive inflictions, and 
hence, the penalty of the law cannot be an- 
nihilation without conscious suffering. 

II. The penalty of the law is not annihi- 
lation with suffering as a part of the same. 

1. It is liable to the first objection urged 
against the former position, that annihila- 
tion, under the circumstances, cannot be a 
punishment. The object of the annihila- 
tionist, in combining suffering with annihi- 
lation, is to escape the two objections urged 
above, viz : first, that annihilation without 
sufiering does not admit of degrees, and, sec- 
ondly, that the Scriptures teach the doctrine 
of positive conscious suffering as a punish- 
ment for sin. If, then, the law inflicts pain, 
fitly represented by " the worm that dieth 
not, and the fire that is not quenched," 
and which produces " weeping and wailing, 
and gnashing of teeth," annihilation must 
be a relief, and cannot be a punishment ; it 
must be an advantage, and cannot be an 
evil under the circumstances. 

2. To suppose that the punishment of sin 
consists of suffering in part, and of annihi- 
lation in part, renders annihilation exceed- 
ingly insignificant as a puuishment, suppos- 
ing it to be a punishment in any degree. 
Supposing it to be, in part, the penalty of 
the law, it follows that it must be inflicted 
upon all who are punished in any degree. 
We cannot suppose a sinner to be half an- 
nihilated ; hence, he must be absolutely and 
entirely annihilated, if annihilation be any 
part of the penalty of the Divine law. Take 
the case of two sinners, one guilty in the 
least degree that a person can be, and still 
deserve punishment, and the other guilty 
to the greatest extent that a sinner can be, 
and, so far as annihilation is concerned, 
they must both be punished alike. The ex- 
cess of punishment which the greater sinner 
receives over the less guilty sinner, must be 
made up in actual suffering, and this must 
constitute its principal portion, so that an- 
nihilation is a mere tittle. One dies so soon 
as he is capable of knowing right from 
wrong — his first act of sin is his only one, 



328 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II- 



and that involves as little ^ilt as any wrong 
act can, and yet for this he must be annihi- 
lated. Another lives to be a hundred years 
old, and fills up the entire period with 
crimes of the deepest dye, and goes to his 
retribution as guilty as a sinner can make 
himself in one hundred years, and he can be 
no more than annihilated. It is said that 
he suffers for his greater guilt before he is 
annihilated. Granted : but as there is al- 
most no comparison between his guilt, and 
that of the one less guilty, who is also anni- 
lated, so there is almost no comparison be- 
tween the suffering he must endure, and an- 
nihilation ; his suffering constitutes nearly 
the whole of his punishment. In proportion 
to the amount of suffering a sinner has to 
endure, is annihilation rendered less fearful, 
or rather more to be desired ; and the more 
guilty a sinner renders himself, the less does 
he lose, or the more does he gain by annihi- 
lation ; and the less guilty a sinner is, the 
more does he lose, or the less does he gain 
by annihilation. Such absurdities and con- 
tradictions are involved by supposing the 
penalty of the Divne law to be composed, 
part of suffering, and part of annihilation. 
The penalty of the law is an evil, a curse, 
and yet this view supposes that one part of 
the curse of the Divine law renders the 
other portion desirable. 

3. To suppose that the punishment of sin 
consists of suffering in part, and of annihi- 
lation in part, represents the penalty of the 
Divine law to be indefinite, confused and 
heterogeneous. If annihilation be the pen- 
alty of the law, even in part, it must be in- 
flicted in every case of punishment. As 
shown above, the least of sinners must de- 
serve annihilation, if it be the penalty of the 
law, for less cannot be deserved or received 
in kind, and it must be inflicted on the smal- 
lest sinner ; otherwise he cannot receive all 
his sins deserve. This being the case, anni- 
hilation must be threatened in the Scrip- 
tures, in every text, where any degree of 
punishment is threatened. If the Scrip- 
tures are true in fact, when they threaten 
sinners with punishment, they threaten just 



what they deserve, both in kind and degree. 
If, then, the Scriptures, in any case, threat- 
en punishment without threatening annihi- 
lation, sinners may deserve and receive pun- 
ishment for sin without deserving or receiv- 
ing annihilation, and the conclusion must be 
irresistible, that annihilation is no part of 
the penalty of the law. What confusion 
must it introduce, to be compelled to under- 
stand annihilation in every denunciation 
against sin. A few examples will be suffi- 
cient to show the absurdity of the thing. 

Matt. viii. 11, 12 : " Many shall come 
from the east and west, and shall sit down 
with Abraham, and with Isaac, and with 
Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven ; but the 
children of the kingdom shall be cast out 
into outer darkness ; there shall be weeping 
and gnashing of teeth." 

This text must mean annihilation, if that 
be the final punishment for sinners. And 
yet every one knows that there is not a 
word in it that suggests the thought of an- 
nihilation. Nor does it express two things, 
suffering and annihilation, but one thing, 
being cast, into outer darkness. This ex- 
pression cannot mean both suffering and an- 
nihilation. 

Matt. xxii. 13 : '' Take him away, and 
cast him into outer darkness ; there shall 
be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 

This must mean annihilation, if that be 
the final punishment of the wicked, and yet, 
like the former text, it expresses but one 
thing, and that has no relation to annihila- 
tion. 

Matt. XXV. 46 : " These shall go away 
into everlasting punishment, but the righte- 
ous into life eternal." 

Here are two words used to express the 
entire punishment of sinners, " everlasting," 
and " punishment." These two words must 
express the whole penalty of the Divine 
law in this instance. Does either of them 
express annihilation by itself? or do they 
both together express it ? Let us see. This 
is a proper text on which to test this ques- 
tion, as it relates most clearly to the final 
punishment of the wicked. 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



329 



(1.) Is the idea of annihilation, or non 
existence, contained in the word " punish 
ment ?" As an English word it certainly 
does not mean annihilation. Dr. Webster 
defines it thus : " Any pain or suffering in- 
flicted on a person for a crime or offence, 
by the authority to which the offender is 
subject, either by the constitution of God 
or of civil society." This settles it so far 
as this word is concerned. But Dr. Web- 
ster derives it from the verb, to punish, and 
this he defines, " to pain, to af39ict with 
pain, loss or calamity, for a crime or fault. 
To chastise. To reward with pain or suffer- 
ing inflicted on the offender." There is, 
then, nothing in the English word punish- 
ment, to denote annihilation or loss of exist- 
ence. " To afflict with loss," does not im- 
ply the loss of existence, but the loss of pos- 
session or privilege. A person annihilated, 
would not, in any proper sense, lose his pos- 
sessions, but his possessions would lose him. 
The very idea of loss supposes the existence 
of the loser. Suppose a person to possess 
much property, wife, children, friends, and 
everything that can make a man happy, but 
he meets the fate of all men ; he dies. And 
in reporting his death, will you say that the 
man has lost his property, his wife, children, 
and all his friends ? Surely not ; the term 
loss, is applied only to those who survive ; 
they have lost him who is now dead. 

Let us then look at the Greek word which 
is here rendered punishment, and see if that 
conveys the idea of annihilation. The 
Greek word here used is kolasin, and is de- 
fined thus, " Punishment ; chastisement, 
torture, the rack ; a punishing or infliction 
of punishment ; a check, restraint, hinder- 
ance ; pruning, loping." Here it is seen 
that the word has no signification which in- 
dicates annihilation or loss of existence. 

(2.) Is the idea of annihilation or non-ex- 
istence found in the word "everlasting?" 
This cannot be, for more reasons than one. 
First; the word expresses perpetual dura- 
tion ; hence, it proves the endless existence 
of whatever it is applied to, rather than its 
annihilation or non-existence. Secondly, 



the same word is applied, to the life of the 
righteous in the same verse, rendered, etern- 
al. The word in the original, is aionion in 
both cases. " These shall go away into 
[kolasin aionion,] everlasting punishment, 
but the righteous into [zoen aionion,] etern- 
al life." Everlasting, and eternal, then, 
means the same thing in this text, and 
hence, if the word everlasting, as applied to 
the punishment of the wicked, contains the 
idea of annihilation, the same word applied 
to the righteous would make an end of their 
hope. Thirdly, if the punishment be anni- 
hilation, then the word everlasting, applied 
to it, cannot express annihilation. If the 
punishment is merely ceasing to exist, it is 
necessarily everlasting, for when a being 
has ceased to exist, is not, such state of 
non-existence is necessarily endless, unless 
existence can spring from non-existence ; 
and hence, to apply the word everlasting to 
non-existence is to talk of everlasting noth- 
ing ; for there is nought but nothing to be 
everlasting after annihilation. We see then, 
that the word everlasting does not express 
annihilation. 

(3.) Do the words " everlasting" and 
" punishment," associated as in the text, 
express annihilation? Certainly they do 
not, and cannot. Keep in mind, that " ev- 
erlasting punishment," in this text, ex- 
presses the entire penalty of the law, involv- 
ing all the punishment that sinners will 
ever receive under the Divine government. 
The word everlasting is an adjective, and 
punishment is a noun, and the adjective 
expresses nothing concerning the nature or 
quality of the punishment, more than its 
simple duration. It simply determines that 
the punishment will be everlasting in point 
of duration, whatever it be in kind and de- 
gree. 

Everlasting punishment here expresses 
the whole penalty of the law, the entire 
punishment inflicted for sin ; and if punish- 
ment includes suffering and annihilation, 
then the word everlasting, being applied to 
the punishment, must qualify the suffering 
as much as it does the annihilation, but it 



330 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



[book II. 



has been shown that if it be so, the suffer- 
ing must constitute far the largest portion 
of the sum total, as the punishment for all 
sin, beyond the smallest offence, must con- 
sist of suffering, since the smallest offence 
involves annihilation, if it be the penalty of 
the law in part or in whole. Now, this 
punishment, not this annihilation, but the 
punishment, the greater part of which is 
suffering, is declared to be everlasting, 
which involves an absolute contradiction 
and imposibility. This is making confu- 
sion confounded out of the penalty of the 
divine law. 

4. To maintain that the penalty of the 
law or proper punishment of sin is both 
suffering and annihilation, consisting in 
part of each, must either fritter away the 
penalty of the divine law to the mere pangs 
of a common death, a moment's pain, or 
represent God unnecessarily severe and 
cruel, and as punishing for the sake of pun- 
ishing. If loss of existence be the penalty 
of the law, then does reason say it involves 
only so much suffering as is necessary to 
dissolve our being. It may be presumed, 
that if God annihilates, or takes away the 
existence of the wicked as a punishment 
for their sin, he will have some uniform 
method of executing the sentence. This is 
believed to be by fire. All who hold that 
the wicked will cease to exist, insist that 
God will burn them up. Admitting this, 
the portion of suffering must be so much, 
and should be only so much as a person 
endures while he is burning to death. Un- 
derstand — the theory is that the wicked 
will not be raised immortal, with undecay- 
ing natures, but that they will be raised 
as they now are, mortal, subject to the ac- 
tion of fire. Admitting then that they are 
to be burned up, it is not possible to see 
how they can suffer more than an ordinary 
death by fire. The pains of hell, accord- 
ing to this view, are less than many good 
people have endured in this life, for they 
have been roasted by a slow fire, which 
did not burn them up as quick as the 
fire of the last judgment will, when the 



heavens shall be on fire and the elements 
melt with fervent heat. Some have had 
their flesh picked from their limbs in small 
pieces with hot pinchers, which must 
cause more pain than to be burned up in a 
very hot fire. All this follows from the 
frailty of our being, on the supposition that 
sinners are to be raised as we now are, a 
material organism, subject to the action of 
fire and death ; and unless sinners are thus 
raised, fire will not burn them up, and the 
argument is at an end. A material organ- 
ism like the human body can endure but a 
limited amount of heat and pain without 
dissolving, and that amount must fix a 
limit to the pains of hell. Thus is the pen- 
alty of the divine law frittered away to 
even less than many of the martyrs endured 
in this world. 

To escape this aspect of the subject, our 
annihilationists insist that the suffering of 
the wicked will be long, and fearfully great 
before they cease to exist. This is not 
possible, unless God in the resurrection 
should constitute man a different being 
from what he is in this world, so as to re- 
quire the action of five, ten, fifty, a hundred, 
five hundred, or a thousand years to burn 
him up. To say the least of this, it is 
without proof. There is not the slightest 
evidence or shadow of proof, upon the sup- 
position that man is to be raised mortal, 
and capable of being burned up. Upon 
this principle, this ^emi-immortal nature 
which is to resist the action of fire for a 
thousand years, or for one whole year, is a 
mere chimera of the brain. But we are 
not prepared to say that God cannot pro- 
duce an organization, just such as this the- 
ory supposes, or that he could not suspend 
the laws of nature, so as, by his power, to 
hold a sinner in existence with his present 
organization, under the tortures of fire for 
a thousand years, but very strong consider- 
ations go to show that he will not do it. 

(1.) It does not appear that any impor- 
tant end would be secured by it. It is not 
necessary to dispose of sinners, and put 
them beyond the power of committing fur- 



i 



CHAP. IX.] 



THE FUTURE STATE. 



331 



tlier wrongs, for that end would be gained 
by letting them die at once. 

(2.) It represents suffering as expiating 
guilt, which must do away the necessity of 
annihilation. If God be not cruel, and in- 
flict suffering for its own sake, why does he 
not annihilate sinners at a blow, and not 
hold them in being for ages ? The only 
valid reason that can be given, is, that jus- 
tice demands that the sinner should suffer 
so much, according to the degree of his 
guilt, before God can send him into non- 
existence. This implies that the suffering 
expiates the sinner's guilt, otherwise justice 
will always require him to remain under 
the same degree of suffering. If when the 
sinner has suffered a hundred years, he is 
just as guilty as he was when he com- 
menced, he deserves just as much punish- 
ment as he did at the commencement, and 
he is no nearer the point when justice can 
allow of his annihilation, if it cannot allow 
of it at once. If the sinner is at the com- 
mencement so guilty that it would be un- 
just to annihilate him, then if he remains 
just so guilty, it will always remain unjust 
to annihilate him ; and he must always re- 
main just so guilty, unless his sufferings 
expiate his guilt, rendering him less guilty 
as he contmues to suffer. But if suffering 
does expiate the sinner's guilt, rendering 
him less deserving of punishment as he 
suffers, when he has reached a point where 
it becomes just to annihilate him, God 
might, by causing him to suffer a little 
longer, expiate the remainder of his guilt, 
and render his annihilation unnecessary. If 
suffering does not remove the sinner's guilt. 



God could dispense with it by annihilating 
him at once, and inflicts unnecessary tor- 
tures by not doing it ; and if it does remove 
the sinner's guilt, a little more of it can re- 
move the whole of it, and God is represent- 
ed as unnecessarily taking away, his exist- 
ence. The annihilationist may take which 
horn of the dilemma he pleases, either will 
gore his theory to death. 

(3.) To suppose God to give to sinners 
an organization capable of enduring a thou- 
sand times as much suffering as his present 
organization, or that he will support, by 
his direct power, the sinner's present or- 
ganization, for the express purpose of hav- 
ing him endure a thousand times as much 
suffering as he could otherwise bear, will 
overthrow the entire foundation on which 
annihilationists build their theory. They 
always urge their theory in opposition to 
endless suffering, and insist that it is the 
only theory which will carry them clear 
of this terrible doctrine. But here God is 
represented as supporting man's frail or- 
ganization for the purpose of causing it to 
suffer a thousand times more anguish than 
it could otherwise bear. 

III. As it has been proved that the 
penalty of the law is not annihilation with- 
out suffering, nor yet annihilation and suf- 
fering, consisting in part of both, it must 
be suffering without annihilation, and the 
conclusion is that sinners will not bo anni- 
hilated. 

The point now being proved, that sinners 
will not be annihilated, it must follow that 
the doctrine of endless punishment is true, 
as proved in the preceding section. 



332 



GOD'S MORAL GOVERNMENT. 



[book III. 



BOOK III. 



CHEISTIANITT CONSIDERED AS A SYSTEM OF MORAL 
GOVERNMENT. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF GOD'S 

MORAL GOVERNMENT AS THEY ARE TAUGHT 

IN THE SCRIPTURES. 



SECTION I. 

The Scriptures teach that God is a Su- 
preme, Universal Moral Governor. 

All government, of whatever kind or 
nature, supposes a governor. The first and 
great fundamental truth therefore which the 
Scriptures teach in regard to government, 
is that God is Governor of the universe. 

It should be observed that the Scriptures 
are not devoted exclusively to a develop- 
ment of a system of moral Government, 
nor do they teach it on the scientific plan of 
one of our modern writers on the subject of 
Moral Philosophy. But all the principles 
are taught in the inspired writings, and so 
plainly and forcibly asserted as to make the 
principles and facts much more readily com- 
prehended by an unlettered and unsophis- 
ticated mind, than the best written modern 
volume on the subject of moral science. 

The fandamental principles of God's moral 
Government, have been more or less invol- 
ved and exhibited, while discussing the ques- 
tions of the inspiration of the Scriptures, 
and the doctrines they teach, yet it is proper 
to present an outline view of these princi- 
ples at this point, that they may be seen 
distinctly unencumbered by other subjects. 

I. The Scriptures assert that God is a 
universal Governor, and that he does gov- 



ern the universe of both matter and mind. 
A few only of the many texts of the class 
need be produced. 

Psal. cxlvii, 5-18 : " Great is our Lord, 
and of great power : his understanding is 
infinite. The Lord lifteth up the meek : he 
casteth the wicked down to the ground. 
Who covereth the heaven with clouds, who 
prepareth rain for the earth, who maketh 
grass to grow upon the mountains. He 
giveth to the beast his food, and to the 
young ravens which cry. He delighteth, 
not in the strength of the horse ; he taketh 
not pleasure in the legs of a man. The Lord 
taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in 
those that hope in his mercy. Praise the 
Lord, Jerusalem ; praise thy God, Zion. 
For he hath strengthened the bars of thy 
gates ; he hath blessed thy children within 
thee. He maketh peace in tlty borders, 
and filleth thee with the finest of the wheat. 
He sendeth forth his commandment upon 
earth : his word runneth very swiftly. He 
giveth snow like wool : he scattereth the 
hoar-frost like ashes. He casteth forth his 
ice like morsels ; who can stand before his 
cold ? He sendeth out his word, and melt- 
eth them : he causeth his wind to blow, and 
the waters flow." 

Psal. cxxxv. 5, 6 : " For I know that 
the Lord is great, and that our Lord is 
above all gods. Whatsoever the Lord 
pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, 
in the seas, and all deep places." 

Psal. xxxiii. 6-11 : " By the word of the 
Lord were the heavens made : and all the 
host of them by the breath of his mouth. 
He gathereth the waters of the sea to- 
gether as a heap : he layeth up the depth 



CHAP. L] 



GOD S MORAL GOVERNMENT. 



333 



in store-houses. Let all the earth fear the 
Lord ; let all the inhabitants of the world 
stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it 
was done ; he commanded, and it stood fast. 
The Lord bringeth the comisel of the hea- 
then to nought : he maketh the devices of 
the people of none effect. The counsel of 
the Lord standeth forever, the thoughts of 
his heart to all generations. 

Psal. ciii. 19 : " The Lord hath prepared 
his throne in the heavens ; and his kingdom 
ruleth over all." 

Psal. xxii. 28 : " For the kingdom is the 
Lord's ; and he is the governor among the 
nations." 

Psal. Ixxv. 6,7: " For promotion cometh 
neither from the east, nor from the west, nor 
from the south. But God is the judge ; he 
putteth down one, and setteth up another." 

Job xii. 10 : " In whose hand is the 
soul of every living thing, and the breath 
of all mankind." 

Isa, xlv. 7 : " I am the Lord and there is 
none else. I form the light, and create 
darkness ; I make peace, and create evil : I 
the Lord do all these things," 

Matt. vi. 26 : '' Behold the fowls of the 
air : for they sow not, neither do they reap, 
nor gather into barns ; yet your heavenly 
Father feedeth them. Are ye not much 
better than they ?" 

Matt. X. 29 : " Are not two sparrows 
sold for a farthing ? and one of them shall 
not fall on the ground without your Father. 
But the very hairs of your head are all 
numbered." 

Acts xvii. 24-28 : " God that made the 
world, and all things therein, seeing that he 
is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not 
in temples made with hands ; Neither is 
worshipped with men's hands, as though he 
need anything ; seeing he giveth to all, life, 
and breath, and all things. And hath made 
of one blood all nations of men, for to 
dwell on all the face of the earth ; and hath 
determined the times before appointed, and 
the bounds of their habitation. That they 
should seek the Lord, if haply they might 
feel after him, and find him, though he be 



not far from every one of us. For in him 
we live, and move, and have our being ; as 
certain also of your own poets have said, 
For we are also his offspring." 

On these texts, it may be remarked, that 
they assert the doctrine of a universal Pro- 
vidence, and clearly represent God as a free 
and independent Governor of the universe. 

1. They assert a physical government 
over the universe of matter. They repre- 
sent the operations of what we call nature, 
as under his immediate control, and the va- 
rious phenomena exhibited as the effect of 
his everywhere present operative power. 
He is represented as causing the vapors to 
ascend, and the clouds to gather, and the 
rain to fall. The frost and snow are repre- 
sented as coming at his call, and as melting 
away at his command. 

2. His guardian care is represented as 
universal, and as extending to man and 
beast. It is made to comprehend every 
sparrow, and every hair of every human 
head. God's government and Providence 
is, at the same time, represented as so wide 
and comprehensive, as to contain within its 
designs and operations, all nations of men 
that dwell on all the face of the earth, mak- 
ing them all so exclusively the creatures of 
his power, that in him alone they live, and 
move, and have their being. 

3. God is represented as having special 
regard for right moral character. It is not 
the strength of a horse in which God de- 
lighteth ; it is not the legs of a man iu 
which he taketh pleasure ; but '' he taketh 
pleasure in them that fear him, in all those 
that hope in his mercy." He calls on all 
the earth to fear him, and commands all the 
inhabitants of the world to stand in awe of 
him, and yet he invites the most distant and 
dark to seek him, " if haply they may feel 
after him, and find him, though he be not 
far from every one of us." 

One of our modern writers on the sub- 
jects of physics and ethics, would no doubt 
attempt to discriminate closer, and to give 
a more perfect analysis, and to exhibit a 
more marked distinction between physical 



334 



GOD'S MORAL GOVERNMENT. 



[book III. 



and moral government, yet it is doubtful 
"whether it would make a stronger impres- 
sion on unlettered minds, of al]-pervading 
Divinity, acting in us and all around us, 
which is one of the first and greatest truths 
connected with the government of God. 

II. The Scriptures most clearly teach 
that God administers a moral government 
over the universe of moral agents. 

1. A moral government is a government 
based upon a distinction between right and 
wrong. The Scriptures always assume that 
there is a distinction between right and 
wrong, that some voluntary acts of men are 
right, and that others are wrong. The 
question with them, is not so much, why a 
given voluntary act is right or wrong, as 
which are right and which are wrong ? JSTor 
are we so much concerned at this point in 
the discussion, to point out why that course 
of action commanded in the Scriptures is 
right, and why the course forbidden is wrong, 
as we are with the fundamental truth that 
there is a distinction between right and 
wrong prior to all written laws, human or di- 
vine. As moral government is based upon 
a distinction between right and wrong, right 
and wrong must be antecedent to moral gov- 
ernment. As it is and must be the object of all 
right government to promote right, and to 
prevent wrong, right and wrong must first ex- 
ist to render a moral government desirable or 
necessary. Law is based upon right, not 
right upon law, in the order of antecedent 
and sequence ; law springs from right, not 
right from law. Laws are enacted to secure 
what is already right, and to prevent what 
is already wrong ; not to create right and 
wrong which did not before exist. Were it 
not so, there would be no reason for enact- 
ing the law. It is an undeniable fact that 
God's law does pronounce some actions of 
moral agents right and other actions wrong. 
This right and wrong of the actions of moral 
agents, must be original, actions being right 
or wrong in themselves, or it must be given 
them by the law as a result of pronouncing 
one class of actions right and another class 
wrong. If the latter position be true, then 



there was not only no reason why the one 
class of actions should be pronounced right 
and the other wrong, prior to the announce- 
ment itself, but all the wrong that exists is 
the result of the law and could not have 
existed without the law. This view would 
also make God's moral government, wholly 
an arbitrary matter, and render it respon- 
sible for all the moral wrong that exists. 
If right and wrong be based upon God's 
moral government, then it must sustain the 
load and bear the wrong as well as the right ; 
but if, as the proposition affirms, God's 
moral government is based upon a distinction 
between right and wrong, then the subject 
is freed from all these difficulties. 

It is upon the mistaken view above ex- 
posed, that sinners war with the moral gov- 
ernment of God as arbitrary and injurious 
to their interests. They talk of the law of 
God as arbitrary, and its penalty as severe, 
whereas the law only asserts the truth and 
the moral necessity which exists in the na- 
ture of things. Moral government is a 
moral necessity, where moral agents exist. 
As God has produced the moral universe, 
he is bound by the law of his own nature to 
exercise over it a moral government ; he 
can do no less. JSTor could God institute a 
more lax moral government, one that would 
be less severe on offenders, as sinners judge 
of severity. If God were to require less of 
moral agents, it would be to abandon them 
to everlasting ruin, and if he were to enforce 
his law by a less fearful sanction, it would 
be to subvert the necessary moral relations 
between moral causes and effects, and dis- 
solve the moral universe. The moral law 
is a barrier thrown between moral agents 
and ruin, and if they so pervert their agency 
as to dash upon it and perish, it will not 
disprove the fact that moral necessity placed 
it there under the sanction of infinite wisdom, 
goodness and justice. It is clear from what 
has been said that a moral government is 
based upon a distinction between right and 
wrong, and that right and wrong necessarily 
exist in the nature of the actions of moral 



CHAP. I.] 



GOD'S MOEAL GOVERNMENT. 



335 



2. Moral Government is a government of 
mind by mind, of intelligence by intelligence, 
and of moral agency by moral agency. God 
the moral governor is the great presiding 
moral agent of the universe. None but a 
moral agent could administer a moral gov- 
ernment. A government administered by 
any being but a moral agent, would not be 
a moral government, but a government of 
force or necessity. 

So none but moral agents can be the sub- 
jects of a moral government. It is a gov- 
ernment of free will. There can be no moral 
rebellion or obedience which is not volun- 
tary, the act of a free will. It is a govern- 
ment of reason by motives or moral influ- 
ence. Motives may be gathered from hea- 
ven, earth and hell, they may be addressed 
to the understanding and the sensibility, and 
they may be pressed home by the eloquence 
of human oratory, and the eloquence of the 
Holy Ghost, and it is but motive or moral 
influence after all, under which the will acts 
freely. 

The freedom of the human will was es- 
tablished in the preceding book, and the 
arguments need not be repeated. The free- 
dom of the will is everywhere assumed upon 
the very face of the record, and the very 
annunciation of a revelation of the will of 
God, as a rule of duty, implies it. If the 
will is not free, there is no more propriety 
in addressing moral laws to man, than there 
would be in addressing moral laws to the 
trees to guide their growth, to the winds to 
govern their blowing, and to waves to con- 
trol the manner in which they break upon 
the shore. 

III. The Scriptures teach that God has 
a right to govern the universe, and especi- 
ally to administer a moral government over 
the moral agents he has created. This the 
Scriptures teach in various ways. 

1. God clearly and directly asserts his 
own right to govern. He asserted his right 
on Sinai, when he said, " thou shalt have 
no other Gods before me." 

Deut. vi. 1-5 : " Now these are the com- 
mandments, the statutes, and the judgments. 



which the Lord your God commanded to 
teach you, that ye might do them in the 
land whither ye go to possess it : That 
thou mightest fear the Lord thy God, to 
keep all his statutes and his commandments 
which I command thee ; thou, and thy son, 
and thy son's son all the days of thy life ; 
and that thy days may be prolonged. Hear 
therefore, Israel, and observe to do it 
that it may be well with thee, and that ye 
may increase mightily, as the Lord God of 
thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land 
that floweth with milk and honey. Hear, 
Israel ; the Lord our God is one Lord. 
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
all thine heart' and with all thy soul, and 
with all thy might." 

2. The Scriptures assert God's right to 
govern when they assert his relation to the 
universe, as creator and preserver. As 
moral government is a moral necessity, a ne- 
cessary thing, and God having created and 
upholding the universe, he has a right to 
govern it. 

3. The Scriptures assert God's right to 
govern, when they assert his fitness as moral 
governor. His attributes have been exhib- 
ited in the light of the Scriptures. He is a 
Spirit, and is eternal, omnipotent, omnipres- 
ent, omniscient, immutable, just, good and 
holy. These perfections of his nature per- 
fectly fit him for a moral Governor. They 
are possessed by no other being in the uni- 
verse, and God, and God alone, must have a 
right to reign and govern the universe. 



SECTION II. 

The Scriptures teach that man is a Subject 
of God's Moral Government. 

The Scriptures go beyond the above prop- 
osition, and teach that angels are subjects 
of God's moral government, but the moral 
relations and responsibilities of man embrace 
all that need be discussed. The fact that 
man is a subject of God's moral government 
has already been made to appear, for it is 



336 



god's moral government. 



[book III. 



clearly implied in the subject of the last 
section. It were impossible to demonstrate 
the fundamental truth that God is a univer 
sal moral governor, as was there done, with 
out involving the fact that man is a subject 
of his government. So have all the essen- 
tial elements of man which necessarily ren- 
der him a fit subject of moral government 
been discussed and fully made to appear; 
while exhibiting the various doctrines of the 
Scriptures. Yet, while discussing the fun- 
damental principles of Grod's moral govern- 
ment, it is better to present all the essential 
points in a brief summary, than to leave the 
reader to gather them from the pages over 
which he has passed, and collate them for 
himself. The Scriptures teach that man is 
a subject of God's moral government in 
various ways. 

I. The Scriptures teach that man is a 
subject of God's moral government, by 
teaching what was demonstrated in the pre 
ceding section, namely, that God is his right 
ful moral governor. 

The right of God to administer a moral 
government over man, implies the fact that 
man is his rightful moral subject, and is 
bound to obey God's moral law. Thus 
docs all the proof adduced on the former 
point, apply with equal force on this. 

1. When the. Scriptures affirm the fact, 
that God is a moral governor, they, in effect, 
assert that man is a subject of his moral 
government. 

2. When the Scriptures affirm God's 
right to govern, they, in effect, assert man's 
obligation to obey. 

3. When the Scriptures assert God's re- 
lation to the universe as Creator and pre- 
server, as involving his right to govern, by 
implication, they assert that man's relation 
to God, as created and upheld by him, 
brings him within the divine jurisdiction, as 
a subject of his government. 

4. When the Scriptures assert God's fit- 
ness as a moral Governor, they, in effect, 
assert that man is under the highest possi- 
ble obligation to turn his eyes and his heart 
to him, be governed by his will, and to trust 



to the outstretched arm of his governmental 
power for protection. 

II. The Scriptures teach that man is a 
subject of God's moral government, by af- 
firming of him, that he possesses all those 
elements which are essential to moral obli- 
gation and accountability. There are cer- 
tain mental and moral attributes without 
which no being can be the subject of moral 
government ; and in the possession of which, 
no being can be without moral goverment. 
These are seen in the three divisions of the 
mental phenomena, intelligence, sensibility, 
and free will. 

But the reader will excuse an omission of 
the order in which philosophers describe 
mental phenomena, and allow the points to 
be stated to suit the present argument. 

1. There must be knowlege, and, of 
course, a capacity to know. Man is en- 
dowed with intelligence. This enables him 
to reason. He can see moral relations, note 
resemblances, and judge, and thus distin- 
guish between right and wrong. 

It is this mental power which God calls 
upon man to exercise when he says, " Come 
now and let us reason together." Isa. 
i. 18. 

2. Man has a conscience, which some 
have called the moral sense, but which is, 
to say the least, a moral emotion. When 
the judgment decides what is right and what 
is wrong, which it does and cannot help do- 
ing, and the will determines in favor of the 
right or the wrong, then conscience, by this 
moral emotion, speaks within, and the will 
can no more suppress its voice than it can 
suppress the voice of God. 

When the will determines in favor of 
what the intellect declares to be right, 
there arises an emotion of approbation of 
self-complacency ; when the will determines 
favor of what is wrong, there arises an 
emotion of self-condemnation, a feeling of 
guilt. 

This moral feeling, this sense of right and 
wrong is universal, all men feel it, all men 
acknowledge it. Without it there could 
be no sense of moral obligation, with it, 



CHAP. I.] 



GOD'S MORAL GOVERNMENT. 



337 



man can but feel a sense of moral obliga- 
tion, and acknowledge himself a subject of 
moral government. This mental phenome- 
non is most distinctly noted in the Scriptm-es, 
as a condition of moral obligation. It is 
particularly noted in regard to those who 
have not God's written law, and hence, it is 
proved to be innate and universal in the hu- 
man mind. 

Kom. ii. 11-15 : " For there is no respect 
of persons with God. For as many as have 
sinned without law, shall also perish with- 
out law : and as many as have sinned in the 
law, shall be judged by the law ; For not 
the hearers of the law are just before God, 
but the doers of the law shall be justified. 
For when the Gentiles, which have not the 
law, do by nature the things contained in 
the law, these, having not the law, are a 
law unto themselves: Which show the 
work of the law written in their hearts, their 
conscience also bearing witness, and their 
thoughts the mean while accusing, or else 
excusing one another." 

3. Man has consciousness, which is the 
knowledge which the mind has of its own 
states. A man is conscious of what passes 
within his own mind, and hence, every man 
is conscious of the fact that his mind does per- 
ceive a distinction between right and wrong, 
that conscience does approve the right and 
condemn the wrong, that he does feel bound 
to do right, and to refrain from the wrong ; 
that is, that he feels the claim of moral ob- 
ligation, and that he is the subject of moral 
government. 

4. Man has the power or faculty of mem- 
ory, which allies him to the past, and by 
the aid of ever present consciousness of per- 
sonal identity, holds him accoutable for all 
the acts of the past, and these render him 
the proper subject of the just retributions, 
which it is the end of moral government to 
bestow. These mental powers taken to- 
gether constitute man the proper subject of 
moral government. -It may be said they 
render him the necessary subject of moral 
government, connected with the voluntary 
faculty. These elements are all found in the 

22 



mind itself, they are common to the race, 
every man is conscious of them, and feels a 
sense of moral obligation, and hears a voice 
within, speaking in the elements of his own 
internal self ; speaking with a voice which 
no clamor of the passions can silence, and no 
sophistry of the intellect refute, pronouncing 
a sentence of approbation when the will exe- 
cutes what the judgment determines is right, 
and a sentence of condemnation when the will 
executes what the intelligence decides is 
wrong. Such a being must necessarily be 
the subject of moral government, and though 
the Scriptures do not discuss and classify the 
mental phenomena involved, upon the prin- 
ci|)les of modern mental science, they teach 
the whole truth in the premises, and sum up 
the result in a single declaration, that " The 
wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the 
righteous are bold as a lion." Prov. xxviii. 
1. This text itself implies conscious guilt 
and conscious innocence, which involves 
moral responsibility, and this renders the 
man subject of a moral government. 

5. Man has the power of volition or free 
will. This point has been abundantly proved, 
but as it is a vital point, and is here laid 
down as essential to the very existence of 
moral government, it is proper to note a 
few of the strong points involved. 

(1.) If man does not possess the power of 
free will, it is not possible to see how he can 
be the subject of moral government. None 
but free will actions, or free volitions can 
be recognized by a righteous moral govern- 
ment, for none other can be moral actions. 
And if this be true, man must be free in the 
exercise of willing, or, so far as he is con- 
cerned, there can be no moral government. 

(2.) If man has not the power of free 
will, he cannot be accountable, and is not 
and cannot be the subject of either reward 
or punishment. 

(3.) If man has not the power of free will, 
he is not and cannot be a sinner. " Sin is 
the transgression of the law," but to con- 
vict a man of a violation of a moral law, it 
must be made to appear that he has power 
to keep the law. The will of God must be 



338 



GOD'S MORAL GOVERNSIENT. 



[book III. 



the highest law in the universe to Y\rhich man 
can stand related, hence, there can be no 
sin without a violation of this supreme law, 
as understood by the mind. It is clear 
that man's will must be free, or it must be 
governed by a law of necessity, in some way 
derived from the Creator. If the latter be 
true, man's actions sustain the same rela- 
tion to the Infinite mind as do the rush of 
waters or the flight of clouds, and man is 
not and cannot be a sinner. 

(4.) If man has not the power of free will, 
all the precepts, promises, and threatenings, 
which the Scriptures address to him, have 
no more applicability, than they would if 
addressed to winds and waves. 

(5.) To deny that man has the power of 
free will, is to divide God in his own coun- 
cils, and set him at variance with himself. 

It has been proved that the Scriptures 
were given by inspiration of God, and of 
course they express the will of God. The 
determinations of the human v/ill must be 
free or necessary ; but if they are necessary, 
the law of that necessity, must be derived 
from the Creator, and the results must be 
in exact accordance with the will of God 
who created the law of necessity which pro- 
' duces those necessary determinations. If 
the determinations of the human will are 
not free, then they must be in exact har- 
mony with the will of God. But God says 
'in his word, •' thou shalt have no other 
Gods before me ;" but the determination of 
the human will is often in favor of other 
Gods. Here are two distinct expressions 
of the will of God in direct conflict v/ith 
each other, and God is divided in his own 
council, and at variance with himself. 
There is no way to escape this, but to deny 
the inspiration of the Scriptures, or to ad- 
mit that the determinations of the human 
will are free, and not governed by any law 
of necessity. God vindicated himself against 
all such imputations, when he demanded 
through his prophet, as follov/s : 

Jer. vii. 9, 10 : " Will ye steal, murder, 
and commit adultery, and swear falsely, 
and burn insense unto Baal, and walk after 1 



other gods whom ye know not : and come 
and stand before me in this house, which is 
called by my name, and say, We are deliv- 
ered to do all these abominations ?" 

(6.) Every man is conscious of acting, 
willing freely, and every man's conscience 
tells him that he wills freely. It may be 
possible for men to fancy themselves gov- 
erned by some unseen hand of fate, some 
hidden destiny, some secret law of necessity, 
but it is only fancy ; if they will look at 
their own internal consciousness, they will 
see the free action of their wills ; if they 
will listen to the voice of their conscience, 
they will hear the doctrine of free will pro- 
claimed from the very throne of the human 
soul. Did the reader ever hear the soul- 
cheering whisper of an approving conscience, 
for having done his duty ; for having per- 
formed an act of virtue or benevolence ? 
Why this placid smile of the soul ? Why 
this internal pleasure ? Why does the soul 
smile on herself when acts are performed 
which the judgment approves, if she does 
not consider herself the author of her own 
conduct? Did the reader ever feel the 
sting of a guilty conscience for having done 
wrong ? Why this sense of guilt ? Why 
does the soul turn and goad herself, and ob- 
scure her light by the darkness of her own 
frown, when something has been done which 
the judgment pronounces wrong, if she 
does not consider herself the author of her 
own deeds? 

(7.) All men confirm the doctrine of the 
freedom of the will, by their plaudits and 
censure which they bestow upon each other. 
All men have their notions of right and 
wrong; the one they applaud, and the 
other they censure ; and this is common to 
all ranks, from the throne to the humble 
seat of the beggar. Why do kings com- 
plain of each other ; and from off their 
thrones hurl the thunderbolts of war, if 
they do not consider each other free in their 
actions ? Why does neighbor complain of 
neighbor for his conduct ? Why do the 
purse-proud gentry complain that so many 
beggars are among them ? and why do beg- 



CHAP. I.] 



god's moral government. 



339 



gars complain that men of means are so 
scanty in their bestowments upon the 
needy? The only answer to these ques 
tions is, all men feel that man possesses 
the power of free will, and in practice pro- 
claim their belief to the world. 



SECTION III. 

The Scriptures contain God's Moral Code, 
for the Government of Man. 

The inspiration of the Scriptures has 
been proved, from which the fact of the 
present proposition follows, so that the prin- 
cipal work which remains to be performed, 
is to explain the subject. 

"When it is said that the Scriptures con 
tain God's moral code, it is not meant that 
they contain nothing but moral law. Much 
of the Bible is mere history, containing 
nothing of the nature of law. Another 
large portion of the Bible contains positive 
laws, establishing positive institutions, with 
their rituals and forms, vrhich cannot be 
classed with moral law. Making these abate- 
ments, it is still insisted that the Scriptures 
contain all moral law for the government 
of man. 

I. The nature of moral law, as distin- 
guished from positive law. 

1. Moral law has its foundation in a dif- 
ference in the quality of the actions of mor- 
al agents, while positive law is the simple 
expression of the will of the law-giver. 
Some states of the human will are in har- 
mony with the various relations in which 
man is placed to his Creator and to his 
fellow beings, and some are not, and herein 
is found the difference between right and 
wrong. 

2. Moral law is universal, because it has 
its foundation in a difference in the nature 
of things, or in a difference in the quality 
of the actions of moral agents ; Ibut posi- 
tive law is not necessarily universal, but 
may be local, restricted or extended ac- 
cording to the will of the law-giver. 



3. Moral law, for reasons above given, 
must be uniform, the circumstances being 
the same, its claims are the same ; but this 
is not the case, necessarily, with positive 
law. 

4. Moral law, having its foundation as 
above described, must be immutable ; while 
positive law may be enacted, altered or 
abolished, as the law giver may determine.. 

5. Moral law being based upon a differ- 
ence in the quality of the actions of moral 
agents, it contains in itself its own power 
of imposing moral obligation, moral agents 
being bound to obey moral law, because 
the thing required is right in itself. Biit 
positive law depending upon the will of the 
law-giver, does not necessarily contain in 
itself the power to impose moral obliga- 
tion, but the reason of its obligation is 
found, not in the nature of the thing re- 
quired, but in the fact that it is com- 
manded. 

Should it be supposed that, the above 
view of the distinction between moral and 
positive law, leaves men free to violate the 
positive laws found in the Scriptures, with- 
out a violation of moral obligation, the re- 
ply is, 

(1.) Moral law, being the dictate of eter- 
nal reason, and founded upon a distinction 
between right and wrong, back of all posi- 
tive enactments, may be enacted or com- 
manded by God, and assume the external 
form of positive law. When this is the 
case, it loses none of its intrinsic nature 
and force as moral law, and men are just 
as much morally bound to obey it, as moral 
law, as they were before it received the ex- 
ternal form as a statute or positive law. 
Such is the fact in regard to the first com- 
mandment of the Decalogue. It is a dic- 
tate of eternal reason that man should have 
no God before the Lord Jehovah, his Crea- 
tor, it is right in itself, it was moral law 
and binding on universal humanity before 
it was spoken on Sinai, or written on the 
table of stone. And now it is moral law 
still, clothed with the external form of stat- 
ute or positive law, and it is no less biad- 



340 



GOD'S MOEAL GOVERNMENT. 



[book III. 



ing as moral law than it was before it re- 
ceived this form. 

(2.) Moral law imposes the obligation of 
obeying all positive laws enacted by the 
rightful moral Governor of the universe. 
If the reader will turn back and consider 
what was said on the subject of God's right 
to govern the universe, there will be found 
in the reasons assigned, sufiicient proof that 
man is under moral obligation to obey God. 
The fact that God is the Creator and man 
the created, that God is infinitely wise, good 
and just, and that man is very limited in 
his knowledge, of itself furnishes sufficient 
ground for declaring man under moral ob- 
ligation to obey God. If then man is under 
moral obligation to obey God. he is morally 
bound to obey all the positive laws God en- 
acts, for though the nature of the thing com- 
manded does not contain in itself, what im- 
poses moral obligation, yet the mind appre- 
hending a positive law as the command of 
God, and at the same time apprehending a 
moral obligation to obey God, arising out 
of the relation he sustains to him, the moral 
obligation to obey God which the mind ac- 
knowledges, requires obedience to the posi- 
tive law, without going behind the record 
of the command to find a reason in the na- 
ture of things. 

The view that has now been taken leads us 
to the conclusion that we are morally 
bound to obey all the commands of the Bi- 
ble, according to their true intention and 
designed application. It has been remark- 
ed, that much of the Scriptures is not law, 
and much of what is law, is positive law, 
and was local and circumscribed in its in- 
tended force and application, and was tem- 
porary in its object, and has not come 
down to us with its obligations as a part 
of the Gospel dispensation. The whole 
Jewish ceremonial law was binding on 
them, because it was commanded by God, 
and being commanded it must have had a 
sufficient reason in his perfect mind, though 
man could see and feel no reason for it be- 
yond the simple fact that God commanded 
it. But this law with its rights and forms 



was typical of the person, office, and work 
of Christ, and was fulfilled in and by him, 
and. passed away, with its binding obliga- 
tion. It remains as an essential branch of 
the economy of salvation by Christ, but it 
has been fulfilled, it has done its work, and 
has become a thing for which there is no 
more practical use, only as a record, and a 
history, through which we trace the pro- 
gressive developments of the plan of redemp- 
tion, and derive proofs of the validity of 
the better things that remain under the 
gospel. But none of the positive enact- 
ments of the Old Testament, which were 
based upon moral principle, have been re- 
pealed or expired by limitation. They are 
binding still, as is also all positive laws in 
the New Testament, which the Gospel has 
added to what may be found in the Old 
Testament. As the Scriptures have been 
proved to have been given by inspiration 
of God, all they command as from God, 
are the commands of God, and as moral 
obligation requires us to obey all the posi- 
tive laws God enacts, abating what of the 
Old Testament has been fulfilled by Christ, 
and passed away, as a type ceases when the 
thing typified is come, and what may have 
been repealed by the Gospel, if any such 
part there be, the whole of the sacred vol- 
ume becomes the Christian's code of laws. 

II. The Scriptures contain an entire and : 
perfect code for the moral government of 
man. By this is meant, that when the 
Scriptures are understood, according to the 
sense intended by the author, they teach and 
command the whole duty of man, and no 
more than the whole duty of man. 

1. It is important at this point, to dis- 
tinguish between the ground of moral obli- 
gation, and the rule of moral obligation. 
The Scriptures, allowing them to be an ex- 
pression of the will of God concerning us, 
are not the ground of moral obligation, yet 
are they the rule of moral obligation. The 
fact that the will of God, or the Scriptures 
rightly understood, is an absolute law to us, 
is one thing, but the reason why it is such 
absolute law, is another thing:. In the lio^ht 



CHAP. I.] 



GOD'S MORAL GOVERNMENT. 



341 



of wliat has been said on the subject of the 
relation subsisting between God and man, 
as Moral Governor, and the subject of a 
moral government, including God's right to 
govern and man's duty to obey, it must ap- 
pear plain, that the ascertained will of God 
is our absolute rule of duty, and that we 
may not go behind the record of God's com- 
mand, to settle the question of our obliga- 
tion to obey. But there may be a reason 
behind the record, why God commands what 
he has, and that reason doubtless is, that 
the thing commanded is a moral good, is 
right in itself The point is, the will or 
command of God reveals and declares what 
is right, but it does not constitute the right. 
This point was considered, while explaining 
the characteristics of moral government, 
under the second general head of section one 
of this chapter, to which the reader is referred. 

We may comprehend, to some extent, the 
reason for some of God's commands, which 
reasons are clearly antecedent to, and exist 
independently of the command itself, and in 
such case, such reasons for such acts, be- 
come to the mind that apprehends them, a 
ground of moral obligation. It is only on 
this ground that men can, to any extent, be 
the subjects of moral obligation, without a 
direct revelation from God, but it has been 
shown that they are ; in the language of 
Paul, that " those who have not the law- 
are a law unto themselves." 

If the command of God created the right 
of the thing commanded, there could be 
nothing right until the commandment was 
issued, and there could be no moral obli- 
gation, beyond a knowledge of the command. 

2. The manner in which the Scriptures 
teach the whole duty of man, needs expla- 
nation. If we look into the Scriptures, ex- 
pecting to find a specific rule for the guid- 
ance of our conduct in every particular re- 
lation, and all the circumstances in which 
we may be placed, we shall be disappointed. 
But, if we search the Scriptures, with a 
view of learning what God declares on the 
subject of many specific actions of leading 
importance, and with a view of finding gen- 



eral rules, by an honest application of which 
we can determine our duty in all cases, we 
shall find them sufficient, and learn that they 
teach the whole duty of man. The Scrip- 
tures make us acquainted with our duty in 
two leading methods. 

(1.) By formal rules, which command or 
forbid specific acts, which are liable to arise 
in our progress in moral existence. There 
are many such rules. As an example, the 
eighth commandment. " Thou shalt not 
steal." Here is a specific prohibition. 
Take as an affirmative example, our Sa- 
viour's last command. " This do in remem- 
brance of me." But it must be obvious 
that this cannot be the only method in which 
duty is revealed in the Scriptures. To re- 
veal all of human duty, as it may be involv- 
ed in the numberless and complicated rela- 
tions and ever changing circumstances of 
our moral being, by this method, would be 
impossible. Man could never write so large 
and complicated a work as it would have 
to be. If it could be written, no man could 
ever read it, if he did nothing else between 
the cradle and the grave. 

If it could be read, no human mind could 
comprehend it for practical use. It would 
require the Infinite mind to comprehend it. 
Indeed, St. John says of the acts of Christ, 
over and above what is recorded of them, 
" And there are also many other things 
which Jesus did, the which if they should 
be written every one, I suppose that even 
the world itself could not contain the books 
that should be written." 

(2.) The Scriptures reveal our duty by 
asserting general principles, which include 
and clearly imply, every particular duty 
which can occur in our experience in moral 
life, so that by making an intelligent and 
honest application of these universal prin- 
ciples, to our particular exigences as they 
arise, we may always learn the path of duty. 
A man has a complicated partnership ac- 
count with his neighbor, there was so much 
capital invested by each party, so much loss 
here, and so much gain there, and the ope- 
ration has gone on so long. Now the ac- 



342 



god's moral government. 



[book III. 



count is to be settled and closed. The par- 
ties are honest, and wish to make a just di- 
vision of what there is to divide. If they 
go to a book professedly teaching how to 
settle such accounts, a treatise on arith- 
metic, if they have not studied the princi- 
ples and learned how to apply them, the 
book sheds not the slightest light on the 
subject. Yet that book contains all the 
principles by which they can, by applying 
them to the case, determine within the smal- 
lest fraction, how the matter of their com- 
plicated account stands. Such a book, in 
morals, is the Bible. Certain moral ques- 
tions are worked out and demonstrated, 
^7hich serve as examples, and principles are 
contained for working all the other cases 
that may arise. 

In the above aspect of the subject, the 
specific rules, which in the letter and form, 
regard only specific acts or cases of duty, 
i'Lirnish general principles capable of being 
applied to other cases. And in addition to 
these, there are universal principles laid 
down, which, like the simple rules in arith- 
metic, which, though few in number, can be 
so applied as to solve all questions which 
come under that branch of science. It is 
upon this principle that Christ declares that 
upon two commandments, hang all the law 
and the prophets. Those two command- 
ments contain principles, which, if applied, 
reach to the end of the entire law. It is 
on the same principle that it is affirmed that 
ail the law is fulfilled in love. " Let us not 
be weary in well doing," is a very general 
rule which specifies no one act of duty, but 
comprehends all. " Abstain from all ap- 
pearance of evil," names no one specific vice, 
yet clearly interdicts all. A better illustra- 
tion of a universal principle, contained in 
a specific direction, cannot be found, than 
what is called the golden rule. " All things 
whatsoever ye would that men should do 
unto you, do ye even so to them." 

III. The Decalogue or Ten Command- 
ments, contains the foundation principles of 
our entire duty, as comprehended in our re- 
lations to God and man. 



Whatever other commands may be found 
in the Scriptures, they are all but repeti- 
tions, expositions, or applications of the 
principles contained in the Decalogue. 
Even whatever positive rules and ordinances 
may be found upon the record, the princi- 
ple which obligates us to obey them, may 
be found in the first commandment, and the 
relation upon which it is there declaratorily 
based. 

1. The moral code of the Old Testament 
has been transmitted to the New, and is 
found in full force in the Gospel. This is 
most clearly taught. When Christ, at the 
opening of his ministry, was about to give 
an exposition of important portions of the 
law, the sense of which had been most per- 
verted ; such an exposition as man had 
never given ; an exposition which brought 
man's very heart of hearts under its claim, 
he prefaced his exposition with the follow- 
ing declaration of its continued binding 
force. 

Matt. V. 17-20 : " Think not that I am 
come to destroy the law or the prophets : I 
am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For 
verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth 
pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise 
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Who- 
soever therefore shall break one of these 
least commandments, and shall teach men 
so, he shall be called the least in the King- 
dom of Heaven : but whosoever shall do 
and teach them, the same shall be called 
great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I 
say unto you. That except your righteous- 
ness shall exceed the righteousness of the 
Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case 
enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." 

Again, the answer which Jesus gave to 
the lawyer, who inquired " which is the 
greatest commandment," proves that the 
law continues in force under the Gospel. 

Matt. xxii. 37-40 : " Jesus said unto him, 
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all 
thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with 
all thy mind. This is the first and great 
commandment. And the second is like unto 
it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 



CHAP. I.] 



god's moeal government. 



343 



On these two commandments hang all the 
law and the prophets." 

Here Christ not only affirmed the binding 
force of the two commandments named, but 
by saying that, ''' on these two command- 
ments hang all the law and the prophets," 
he by undeniable implication, affirmed the 
binding force of the whole law, and all the 
moral precepts found in the prophets. If 
the two commandments are transmitted to 
the Gospel, as is certain, then all that hangs 
upon them must come with them, and that 
is all the law and the prophets. So we read 
the words of Paul, " Do we then ma.ke void 
the law through faith ? God forbid, yea we 
establish the law. Kom. iii. 31. 

Other proofs might be given, but this is 
sufficient. It is seen from this view of the 
subject, that the objection urged by some, 
that no writer of the New Testament names 
all the commandments of the Decalogue, 
when referring to it, possesses no force. The 
expression, " the law," and " all the com- 
mandments," in the words of Christ, neces- 
sarily comprehends the whole code. 

2. The moral code of the Old Testament, 
in passing into the New, has become more 
fully developed in its principles, and more 
widely, and clearly, and forcibly applied to 
the states of the heart, so that the Gospel is 
a more perfect system of morality than was 
the Jewish code. To be satisfied of this, it 
is only necessary to read Christ's exposition 
of the moral code, contained in his sermon 
on the mount. They also have added to 
them, the living illustration of Christ's per- 
fect example, and higher sanctions, by 
means of the clearer development, which the 
Gospel makes of a future state of eternal 
retributions. 

3. The moral code of the Scriptures is an 
exclusive rule of duty. What the Scrip- 
tures teach, being understood, is the supreme 
and exclusive law of man, insomuch that it 
admits of no other conflicting rule of any 
kind, or from any source, and allows of no 
exceptions in obedience. When the concep- 
tion of duty as taught in the Scriptures, is 
clear, it must be performed ; when the sense 



of the command is clear to our own minds, 
the word must be obeyed, cost what it may. 
Sooner than disobey an understood com- 
mand contained in the Scriptures, we must 
sacrifice all supposed interests, honor, liber- 
ty, and even life itself. The words of the 
blessed Jesus are. Matt. xvi. 25 : " If any 
man will come after me, let him deny him- 
self, and take up his cross, and follow me. 
For whosoever will save his life shall lose 
it : and whosoever will lose his life for my 
sake shall find it." 

We have also the example of prophets 
and Apostles, who endured imprisonments, 
tortures, and death itself, when they might 
have escaped the whole, by a single act of 
disobedience to the command of God. Dan- 
iel and his companions present heroic exam- 
ples. When Peter and John were called 
before the rulers, it is said Acts iv. 18-20, 
that they " commanded them not to speak 
at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus. But 
Peter and John answered and said unto 
them. Whether it be right in the sight of 
God to hearken unto you more than unto 
God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak 
the things which we have seen and heard." 

After this, chap. v. 28, 29, when they had 
brought them before the council again, they 
demand of them, " Did not we straitly com- 
mand you that you should not teach in this 
name ? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusa- 
lem with your doctrine, and intend to bring 
this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and 
the other Apostles answered and said, We 
ought to obey God rather than men." 

Here the claim is set up, that no human 
authority can lay us under obligation to 
disobey God. 

4. The moral code of the Old Testament 
consisted of two tables, upon which was 
v/ritten the two great and distinct classes 
of duty. The first table contained the four 
first commandments, embracing in principle 
all the duties we owe to God. The second 
table contains the remaining six command- 
ments, embracing all the duties we owe to 
our fellow beings. This distinction between 
the two tables of the law, was clearly rec- 



344 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book III. 



ognized by our Saviour, when he declared the 
whole law to be summed up in two com- 
mands, love to God and man Having briefly 
stated the fundamental principles of God's 
moral government, as they are taught in 
the Scriptures, the way is prepared to 
examine more particularly into specific du 
tics, which the Scriptures enjoin towards 
God and man. This will be done in subse 
quent chapters. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 

The duties which we owe to God, are such 
as are suited to the relation we sustain to 
him, and such as also regard him directly, 
and terminate on him as their object. It 
was shown in the preceding chapter, that 
the Decalogue contains a summary of the 
whole duty of man, and that the first table 
contains a summary of all the duties we 
owe to God. It will not, however, be the 
most convenient method of exhibiting these 
duties, to attempt to bring them out of the 
Decalogue, by an inductive process. The 
comments of our Saviour, and the Gospel 
in general, sheds so much additional light 
on the subject, that a better process will be, 
to consider the . several duties in the order 
of their importance, and illustrate and en- 
force them by such Scriptures as appear 
best suited to accomplish that end. 



SECTION I. 

Love to God. 

Our Saviour declares love to God, to be 
the first and great duty of man, and that 
it involves all other duties. It is, no doubt, 
demanded by the first commandment of the 
Decalogue, which is, " Thou shalt have no 
other God before me." It is worthy of re- 
mark, that this commandment, in form, is 
purely prohibitory. This, indeed, is the 
case with all the commandments, except the 



fourth and fifth, which are mandatory. The 
reason of this may be found in the fact that 
man is naturally a religious being, and must 
and will have his God, and his religion, and 
render the devotion of his heart somewhere. 
When, therefore, all other gods are inter- 
dicted, and excluded from the human heart, 
it will as certainly find its centre in the true I 
God, as moral causes produce moral effects. \ 
In this point of light, the command, though 
prohibitory in form, is mandatory by impli- 
cation, and implies positive duty. This con- 
clusion is not left to rest upon mere infer- 
ence, but has been affirmed by our Lord. 
He gave the following as the sense of this 
commandment : " And thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with 
all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with 
all thy strength. This is the first command- 
ment." 

It is true that Christ quoted from Deut- 
eronomy, yet that must be regarded as a 
statement of the same principle in another 
form. To have no other God before Jeho- 
vah our God, in result, must be equal to 
loving the Lord our God with all our hearts. 

According to our Lord's exposition, of 
this commandment, all the other command- 
ments of the first table hang upon it. This is 
not because love includes the forms of the 
other commandments, but because it is the 
substance of all obedience. He who loves 
God with all his heart, will not only 
feel it his duty to obey God, but will find it 
his highest pleasure. Supreme love to God 
will induce obedience to all God's known 
commands. The way is now prepared for 
an inquiry into what this first and great 
commandment requires. This inquiry must 
be started with the question, what is love 
to God ? Love to God is a complex mental 
state, including several exercises and emo- 
tions of the soul 

I. It is an emotion of admiration, which 
is produced when the intelligence conceives 
of God's intrinsic and eternal excellence. 
It is not affirmed that a lone cold view of 
intelligence, however clear it may be, will 
produce this emotion ; there must be some- 



CHAP. II.] 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



345 



thing more, as will soon be seen, but it is in- 
sisted that it is never produced without it. 
If it were otherwise, love would be blind, 
and one could love the devil as well as God, 
if no conception of intrinsic moral worth 
were necessary in order to the required love. 
Intelligence cannot love what is not, or does 
not appear, in its view, to be excellent. 
How can an intelligent mind love what does 
not appear, in its view, to be good and lovely ? 
From this it follows. 

1. That love to God implies some know- 
ledge of his perfections, some appreciation 
of the intrinsic excellence of his character. 
This view of the divine excellence is doubt- 
less very limited in the wisest and best of 
men, yet it is clear enough, or may be so 
rendered, as to lay universal humanity un- 
der obligation to love God. Paul and Bar- 
nabas, Acts xiv. 16, 17, while pursuading 
the heathen, who had no written law, not 
to sacrifice to them, speak as follows, of 
God and his universal Providence : " Who 
in times past suffered all nations to walk in 
their own ways. Nevertheless, he left not 
himself without witness, in that he did good, 
and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful 
seasons, filling our hearts with food and 
gladness." 

The idea of God, once existing in the 
mind, all the current blessings of life must 
be regarded as bounties distributed by his 
liberal hand, and as proofs of his goodness. 
Be this as it may, love to God cannot exist 
without some knowledge of his character. 

2. Love to God, both as a duty, and as 
a felicitous exercise of mind, implies the duty 
of seeking to know God. As love to God 
depends upon an appreciation, to some ex- 
tent at least, of his perfect character, and 
cannot exist only so far as we know God, 
the duty to love God implies the duty of 
seeking to know him. This then is one of 
the first duties we owe to God, to inquire 
after him, and in the use of all the means 
and powers we possess, to make ourselves 
acquainted with^-him, and to learn his cha- 
racter and his will. One of the most terri- 
ble crimes that was ever charged upon er- 



ratic humanity, is set forth, when Paul says 
of the corrupt heathen, " they did not like 
to retain God in their knowledge." The 
love of God depending upon our conception 
of his goodness or excellence in himself, love 
will beget a desire to know more of him, 
and increased knowledge of him will awaken 
a deeper and stronger emotion of admira- 
tion which has been afiirmed to be one of 
the essential elements of love to God. It is 
our duty to study to know God, to know 
more of God. Think of God ; think of his 
attributes and his character. Study them. 
Study them in the light of his works ; 
" the heavens declare his glory ; study them 
in the light of his Providence ; study them 
in the light of his word. Behold divinity 
developing its attributes, in the redemption 
of a lost world by Jesus Christ : 

" Here the whole Deity is known — 
Nor dares a creature guess. 

Which of the glories brightest shone, 
The justice or the grace." 

3. From the above it must follow, that 
if we love God at all, we shall love him with 
an intensity proportioned to our knowledge 
of his character, and the clearness of our 
conception of his absolute perfection. We 
are therefore bound to seek to know God as 
a means of loving him, and of becoming 
like him. Love has a reflex action upon 
the heart that loves. Love being what it 
has thus far been described to be, will be 
felt in proportion to the clearness of our 
conception of God's eternal excellence which 
awakens the emotion, and the reflex action 
upon the heart will be in proportion to the 
intensity of the love, or the emotion of ad- 
miration awakened. If the light be clear, 
the emotion deep, and the soul's moral eye 
be fixed steadily and intensely on God, the 
divine image will be more clearly and per- 
fectly daguerreotyped upon the heart. 

4. The view already taken of love in- 
cludes the idea of approval. Some make 
this a distinct point, but it is certain that 
admiration includes the act of approval. 
This approval is not a mere sanction of the 



546 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book III. 



divine character in the abstract, but regards 
the developments of that character, as seen 
in the principles and administration of his 
government. The soul that truly loves Grod 
approves of the character of God, of his 
Providence, of his plan of salvation, and of 
its conditions and entire economy. So far 
as the intelligence can comprehend the ways 
of God, the one undivided feeling of the 
soul is, " he hath done all things v^ell." 

5. Love to God also inchides the feeling of 
delight. This has been made a distinct 
element of love by some writers, but it is 
clearly comprehended in admiration, which 
is the first leading attribute of love. Take 
from admiration the feeling of approval and 
delight, and it will degenerate into mere 
wonder. This delight which is involved in 
the act of loving God, renders the soul that 
loves, happy in proportion to the intensity 
of the love exercised. This will produce a 
desire for communion with God, and lead to 
a use of all the means to promote it. 

II. Love to God is a feeling and senti- 
ment of good will, commonly expressed by 
the word, benevolence. Some writers con- 
tend that we are to love God with the love 
of complacence only, and not with the love 
of benevolence, but this appears to result 
from their confounding the principle and 
feeling of benevolence with the more com- 
mon circumstances among men which call 
for its practical development. Men are ac- 
customed to contemplate benevolence in 
connection with want and suffering to be 
relieved, and so to associate it with the ex- 
ercise of compassion, that it is difficult for 
them to conceive of the exercise of benevo- 
lence towards God, who is infinitely and 
eternally happy and glorious in himself. It 
is admitted that we cannot exercise benevo- 
lence towards God, as we do towards men 
when we are moved by a feeling of pity to 
relieve their suffering, but the principle of 
benevolence has a deeper and more abidi ng 
place in the heart than these mere ebullitions 
of pity at the sight of human misery. It 
cannot he denied that benevolence, as a 
principle, may exist in the heart, where 



there is neither means or occasion for its 
practical development. The heart of a man 
of means may be full of benevolence, when 
there are none v/ithin his reach who need 
relief ; and the heart of the destitute may 
be full of benevolence when they have no 
means to relieve the suffering. Nor can it 
be denied that the most destitute and help- 
less man can exercise a feeling of good will 
towards his good, wealthy and prosperous 
neighbor, whom he has no power to benefit 
or injure. So far as God's unchangeable 
character, happiness and essential glory are 
concerned, it is not so clear that we can ex- 
ercise benevolence towards him, beyond a 
mere approval which has been included un- 
der another head. It may appear reasona- 
ble that our obligation to exercise benevo- 
lence, is limited to our sphere as moral in- 
strumentalities for good, but in this aspect, 
we sustain a relation to God, and to the de- 
velopment of his glory, and the success of 
his scheme of schemes for redeeming and 
saving the world. We cannot add to God's 
essential glory, but we make that glory 
known, and thereby add to what has been 
called his declarative glory. God's heart 
of hearts is engaged in his great enterpise of 
redeeming and renovating the world, and 
we have it in our power to act as co-work- 
ers with God, in the accomplishment of his 
benevolent plan. 

To exercise benevolence towards God, is, 
then, to wish well, to wish success to all his 
plans, because they are his plans, emanating 
from his allwise and benevolent mind, and 
not merely for the sake of man, whose hap- 
piness they regard. In view of what has 
been said, two remarks appear called for. 
. 1. The above described element of love to 
God, appears to be the life and power of 
Christian zeal. 

Some Christians may pray and sing be- 
cause it makes them feel happy, nor may any 
one afiirm that it is wrong to desire to be 
happy, or to enjoy happiness in devotion ; 
yet the love of present happiness is not the 
highest motive to Christian zeal. Some 
may give, and pray, and labor to save souls, 



CHAP. II.] 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



347 



and it is right so to do, but the salvation of 1 certainty that a sinner was never conscious 
souls, important as it is, considered only as of exercising true love to God, until he first 
a good to the saved, is not the only motive felt God's pardoning mercy exercised ' to- 
to Christian zeal. The feeling: of benevo- wards him, and his love shed abroad in his 



lence towards God, which has been describ- 
ed as included in love to God, brings us into 
sympathy with his mind, his will, his pur- 
poses, and his zeal, and makes the soul pant 
for the extension of his glory, the success of 
his plans, and the subjugation of the world 
to his moral sceptre. It is not easy to see 
from what other view of love to God, the 
highest degree of intelligent Christian zeal 
can arise. 

2. This benevolence or good will toward 
God, will show itself in the use of all appro- 
priate means within our power to promote 
his cause. 

III. Love to God includes gratitude. 
But what is gratitude ? It is the pleasing 
emotion which is awakened by some benefit 
bestowed. It includes three things. 

1. A belief in the good design, the benev 
olent intention of the giver. A gift ever so 
valuable in itself, would not excite the 
slightest degree of gratitude. If believed to 
be bestowed from an evil intention. 

2. A proper appreciation of the gift. It 
must be' conceived of as valuable in fact, or 
as adapted to promote our happiness. 

3. Joy at the reception of the gift. This 
last emotion appears to be a necessary at- 
tendant of the two former. 

Such being the nature of gratitude, and 
it being a fundamental element of love to 
God it follows : 

1. That love to God is a sequence of 
God's apprehended love to us. It supposes 
a sense of God's goodness to us personally. 
It does not arise on any general view of 
God's goodness to the universe, or to our 
race, only as we feel ourselves to be personal 
partakers of the benefit. It is not necessary 
to discuss the question, whether or not any 
being, in any circumstances, can feel the 
emotion of love without a sense of benefit 
received from the object to be loved ; we 
know that in the case of fallen men, they do 
not. It may be af&rmed with the greatest 



heart. Then and not till then he is con- 
scious of loving God. This is settled by an 
inspired apostle, 1 John iv. 19. " We love 
him because he first loved us ; " not that we 
first love him, as a means of exciting his 
love towards us. 

2. Love to God, including as it does, the 
emotion of gratitude, must necessarily 
prompt us to all obedience. Gratitude dis- 
poses the mind exercised by it, to make all 
possible return for benefits received. Here 
it is that love becomes the moving power of 
all obedience. It is true that man cannot 
bestow upon God, a benefit proportioned to 
the blessings received, yet he can feel his 
obligation of gratitude, and acknowledge it 
by devoting his ransomed powers to God, 
his Creator and Redeemer. As the benefit 
received is the value of his existence twice 
told, bestowed, first, in creation, and second- 
ly, in his redemption, the impulse of grati- 
tude, when once awakened, must impel us 
to consecrate ourselves entirely to God, now 
and forever. Thus is it seen that love to 
God is the moving power of all obedience. 

lY. Love to God, includes trust in him, 
which never exists, only in connection with 
absolute submission to God. These may 
appear to some minds to be distinct duties, 
but it appears that submission is an esential 
element of that trust which we are required 
to repose in God. If it were affirmed that 
submission is possible without trust, it 
would then only be the submission of des- 
pair ; but it cannot be affirmed that trust 
in God is possible without submission. 

To trust in God is to repose confidence 
in him, confidence in his goodness to pro- 
vide, in his wisdom to guide, and in his 
power to defend, and to feel safe in so doing. 
But this necessarily includes submission, the 
entire and absolute surrender of the heart 
to him. How can we trust him, unless we 
surrender ourselves into his hands ? It is 
written, "thou shalt have no other gods 



348 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book III. 



before me. " All other gods, powers, influ- 
ences and trusts, must be renounced and 
shaken off, and the heart must give up every- 
thing which would hold it back from God ; 
the heart must yield everything which God 
forbids, and purpose everything which God 
commands. The heart cannot be said to 
trust God while anything is kept back, 
while its affections run in another direction. 
The thought is well expressed by the apos- 
tle, when he says, " Let them that suffer 
according to the will of God, commit the 
keeping of their souls to him in well doing, 
as unto a faithful Creator." 1. Peter iv. 
19. That this trust is implied in loving 
God, cannot be denied. In view of the 
divine attributes, love to God, necessa- 
rily includes this trust in him ; to feel a 
want of trust, would be to feel a want of 
love. 

Y. Love to God necessarily inspires de- 
votion ; it includes the heart exercise of 
worship. It will not be pretended that 
acceptable worship can be rendered to God, 
without having the heart under the control- 
ling influence of love to him. Nor will it 
be maintained that there are any who love 
God who do not worship him in some form. 
But what is worship ? Christian worship 
is the heart engaged, making expression of 
its love to God, through appropriate forms 
of adoration, homage, reverence, prayer, 
thanksgiving and praise. 

There can be no doubt that the first com- 
mandment imposes the obligation of wor- 
ship, yet as it has its visible forms, and de- 
mands that there be seasons set apart for 
exercise therein, it will be necessary to 
devote more particular attention to it as a 
distinct duty. 

The first commandment has now been 
examined, and it has been seen in what sense 
the other commandments hang upon it. If 
it were carried out in the exercise of supreme 
love to God, it would necessarily secure 
obedience to all the other commandments. 
Love to God is a duty which must pervade 
and enter into the performance of every 
other duty, and having discussed this uni- 



versal all comprehensive duty, the way is 
prepared to consider some of the more par- 
ticular and formal duties which we owe to 
God. 

SECTION II. 
Reverence and fear of God. 

Eeverence and fear are joined in the title 
of this section, because they are so connect- 
ed as to require them to be considered to- 
gether. There may be fear without rever- 
ence, but there can be no reverence without 
fear. True reverence is fear tempered and 
softened by love ; or fear mingled with re- 
spect and esteem. It is our duty to fear 
God. But before proceeding further to ex- 
plain the duty of fearing God, it is proper 
to notice a text which some have supposed 
entirely contradicts and subverts the doc- 
trine of fear. It is 1 John iv. 18 : " There 
is no fear in love ; but perfect love casteth 
out fear ; because fear hath torment. He 
that feareth, is not made perfect in love. " 

There can be no doubt that perfect love 
casts out fear, and it may be true as some 
quote the text, erroneously, perfect love 
casteth out all fear ; but it is true, only of 
the kind of fear of which the apostle was 
speaking. What this fear was may be 
learned from the preceding verse. 

" Herein is our love made perfect, that 
we may have boldness in the day of judg- 
ment : because as he is, so are we in this 
world." 

Boldness is the day of judgment, stands op- 
posed to the fear which is cast out by perfect 
love. It is, then, the fear of being condemned 
in the day of judgment that love casts out. 
This fear is the result of a want of suffi- 
cient evidence of our acceptance with God, 
but perfect love will give the clearest evi- 
dence of this important fact, and hence, it 
will remove all fear of the judgment, but it 
will not remove that virtuous fear of God 
which the Scriptures everywhere teach. 

That it is our duty to fear God, with a 
submissive, holy, reverential awe, cannot be 
doubted by those who read the Scriptures. 



CHAP. II.] 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



349 



It will require but a few texts to prove that 
God has commanded mankind to stand in 
fear of him. Moses told the Israelites, Deut. 
iv. 10 : " The Lord said unto me, Gather 
me the people together, and I will make 
them hear my words, that they rnay learn 
to fear me all the days that they shall live 
upon the earth, and that they may teach 
their children." 

Deut. xxviii. 58 : " If thou wilt not ob- 
serve to do all the words of this law that 
are written in this book, that thou mayest 
fear this glorious and fearful name, THE 
LORD THY GOD ; Then the Lord will 
make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues 
of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long 
continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long 
continuance." 

Prov. i. 7 : " The fear of the Lord is the 
beginning of the knowledge : but fools de- 
spise wisdom and instruction." 

ChaD. viii. 13 : " The fear of the Lord is 
to hate evil : pride, and arrogancy, and the 
evil way, and the froward mouth, do I 
hate." 

Chap. xvi. 6 : "By mercy and truth in- 
iquity is purged ; and by the fear of the 
Lord men depart from evil." 

Eccle. viii. 12 : " Though a sinner do evil 
a hundred times, and his days be prolonged, 
yet surely, I know that it shall be well with 
them that fear God, which fear before 
him." 

Mall. iii. 16, 17 : " Then they that feared 
the Lord spake often one to another ; and 
the Lord hearkened, and heard it : and a 
book of remembrance was written before 
him for them that feared the Lord, and 
that thought upon his name. And they 
shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in 
that day when I make up my jewels : and I 
will spare them, as a man spareth his own 
son that serveth him." 

Jesus Christ taught men to fear God. 

Luke xii. 4, 5 : " And I say unto you, 
my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill 
the body, and after that have no more that 
they can do. But I will forewarn you 
whom yoa shall fear : Fear him which, after 



he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell ; 
yea, I say unto you, Fear him." 

2 Cor. vii. 1 : " Having, therefore, these 
promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse our- 
selves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, 
perfecting holiness in the fear of God." 

Acts ix. 31 : " Then had the churches 
rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and 
Samaria, and were edified ; and walking in 
the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of 
the Holy Ghost, were multiplied." 

Heb. xii. 28, 29 : "Wherefore we receiv- 
ing a kingdom which cannot be moved, let 
us have grace, whereby we may serve God 
acceptably with reverence and godly fear : 
For our God is a consuming fire." 

The above are only a part of the texts 
which teach that it is our duty to fear God, 
and that the fear of God exerts a salutary 
influence upon the lives of men. The proof 
is clear, and it is only necessary to add a 
brief explanation of the subject. 

1. This fear of God, which is commanded, 
and which is a virtue, should be distinguish- 
ed from the fear which the wicked feel. 

The wicked are often in great fear of God, 
but their fear is a very different thing from 
that which God requires, and which the 
pious feel. The fear which the wicked have 
of God, is connected with hatred of God. 
Yes, Paul calls sinners, " haters of God." 
But the fear which the pious feel, is con- 
nected with love, which tempers it, and 
softens it into a deep reverential awe. 

The fear which the wicked feel, is con- 
nected with a sense of guilt, which awakens 
a dread of punishment. They fear God be- 
cause they know that they are guilty and 
deserve to be punished, and know that " the 
wrath of God is revealed from heaven against 
all ungodliness, and all unrighteousness 
of men." (Rom. i. 18.) But the fear which 
the pious feel, is connected with such a view 
of his character as a moral governer, such 
a sense of his eternal excellence and infinite 
perfection, that they fear to ofiend him, as a* 
just being fears to do wrong. The fear 
which the wicked feel is like that which is 
felt for an enemy, who is able to crush us 



350 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book III. 



with his power ; for the wicked feel that 
God is their foe^ But the fear which the 
pious feel, is like that which a devoted child 
feels for a wise, tender and beloved parent. 
It Is a deep veneration, which is a happy 
compound of fear, affection, and confidence. 
The fear of the wicked is that which hath 
torment ; but the fear of the pious is con- 
nected with peace, joy and assurance. These 
commingled emotions constituting the fear 
of Grod which Christians feel, do not at all 
times maintain the same equilibrium ; when 
a clear view is obtained of God's infinite 
love to humanity and the realities of re- 
demption, and assurance of acceptance with 
God, are realized in the soul, the impulse of 
love appears to break through the limits 
fixed around the mount upon which God de- 
scends, and the soul basks in the sunshine of 
his unclouded favor. At another time, 
when a stronger view is obtained of God's 
infinite greatness and awful majesty, the 
soul seeks a back ground position to enjoy 
the opening vision of the throne, and the 
song of praise trembles upon the lips of de- 
votion. It is, then, that the soul looks 
back from God upon itself and sings, 

" Earth from afar hath heard thy fame. 
And worms have learnt to lisp thy name. 
But oh ! the glories of thy mind 
Leave all our soaring thoughts behind ! 

" God is in heaven, and men below : 
Be short our tunes ; our words be few ! 
A solemn reverence checks our songs, 
And praise sits silent on our tongues." 

2. The fear of God, as it has been de- 
scribed, is most obviously suited to our re- 
lation to him, and should be constantly and 
earnestly cultivated. 

God is eternal and infinite in all his at- 
tributes, and awful in majesty. It is not 
possible for man's finite mind to conceive of 
infinite greatness, power, wisdom and majes- 
' ty. God cannot communicate an idea of his 
own infinity, because it would require an in- 
finite capacity to receive it, which is impos- 
sible. Some of the most sublime and aw- 
ful descriptions of the divine majesty are 



found in the Scriptures, yet these are only 
the measure of finite minds, for God cannot 
reveal himself beyond the capacity of man 
to receive and communicate. It may help 
our views of God to look at some of these 
outbeamings of inspired eloquence. 

'• Blessed be thy glorious name, which is 
exalted above all blessing and praise. Thou, 
even thou, art Lord alone : thou hast made 
heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all 
their host, the earth, and all things that are 
therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and 
thou preservest them all ; and the host of 
heaven worshippeth thee." 

" Canst thou by searching find out God ? 
canst thou find out the Almighty unto per- 
fection ? It is as high as heaven ; what 
canst thou do ? deeper than hell ; what 
canst thou know ? The measure thereof is 
longer than the earth, and broader than the 
sea. If he cut off, and shut up, or gather 
together, then who can hinder him ? Hell 
is naked before him, and destruction hath no 
covering. He stretcheth out the north over 
the empty place, and hangeth the earth 
upon nothing. He bindeth up the waters 
in his thick clouds ; and the cloud is not 
rent under them. He holdeth back the 
fa.ce of his throne, and spreadeth his cloud 
upon it. He hath compassed the waters 
with bounds, until the day and night come 
to an end. The pillars of heaven tremble, 
and are astonished at his reproof. He 
divideth the sea with his power, and by 
his understanding he smiteth through the 
proud. By his spirit he hath garnished the 
heavens ; his hand hath formed the crooked 
serpent. Lo, these are parts of his ways ; 
but how little a portion is heard of him ; 
but the thunder of his power who can un- 
derstand." 

"Bless the Lord, my soul. Lord 
my God, thou art very great ; thou art 
clothed with honor and majesty : Who cov- 
erest thyself with light as with a garment ; 
who stretcheth out the heavens like a cur- 
tain ; "Who layeth the beams of his cham- 
bers in the waters ; who maketh the clouds 
his chariot ; who walketh upon the wings 



CHAP. II.] 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



351 



of the wind ; Who maketh his angels spirits ; 
his ministers a flaming fire." 

'' Who hath measured the waters in the 
hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven 
with the span, and comprehended the dust 
of the earth in a measure, and weighed the 
mountains in scales, and the hills in a bal- 
ance ? Who hath directed the Spirit of the 
Lord, or, being his counsellor, hath taught 
him ? With whom took he counsel, and who 
instructed him, and taught him in the path 
of judgment, and taught him knowledge, 
and showed to him the way of understanding ? 
Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, 
and are counted as the small dust of the bal- 
ance : behold, he taketh up the isles as a very 
little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient 
to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a 
burnt-offering. All nations before him are 
as nothing ; and they are counted to him 
less than nothing and vanity. To whom 
then will ye liken God ? or what likeness 
will ye compare unto him ?" 

" God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth ; 
the Lord revengeth, and is furious : the Lord 
will take vengeance on his adversaries, and 
he reser veth wrath for his enemies. The Lord 
is slow to anger, and great in power, and 
will not at all acquit the wicked : the Lord 
hath his way in the whirlwind and in the 
storm, and the clouds are the dust of his 
feet. He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it 
dry, and drieth up all the rivers : Bashan 
languisheth, and Oarmel, and the flower of 
Lebanon languisheth. The mountains quake 
at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is 
burnt at his presence, yea, the world, and all 
that dwell therein. Who can stand before 
his indignation ? and who can abide in the 
fierceness of his anger ? his fury is poured 
out like fire, and the rocks are thrown 
down by him." 

" God came from Teman, and the Holy 
One from mount Paran. His glory covered 
the heavens, and the earth was full of his 
praise. Before him went the pestilence, 
and burning coals went forth at his feet. 
He stood and measured the earth : he be- 
held, and drove asunder the nations ; and 



the everlasting mountains were scattered, 
the perpetual hills did bow : his ways are 
everlasting. I saw the tents of Cushan in 
affliction : and the curtains of the land of 
Midian did tremble. The mountains saw 
thee, and they trembled ; the overflowing 
of the water passed by : the deep uttered 
his voice, and lifted up his hands on high. 
The sun and moon stood still in their 
habitation : at the light of thine arrows 
they went, and at the shining of thy glitter- 
ing spear." 

The above are six extracts from six dif- 
ferent pens, the oldest of which was written 
more than three thousand years ago. They 
come infinitely short of impressing our 
minds with a true sense of the attributes of 
the Eternal God, yet are they calculated to 
excite a reverential awe. 

When we have arrived at as clear, and 
enlarged views of God as we can, let us 
think of ourselves as sustaining a relation to 
this infinite Jehovah. And what is a man 
amid all the works of God? A mere 
speck of existence amid universal being, 
floating upon the surface of an hour. To 
God are we indebted for the existence we 
have, and all the blessings we enjoy. The 
relation of man to God is not only that of 
creature to Creator, but that of weakness, 
ignorance and unworthiness, to infinite pow- 
er wisdom and holiness. Again, man sus- 
tains the relation of accountability to God, 
as his moral Governor. For every thought, 
feeling, word and act, he has to render an 
account. The omniscient eye of God is upon 
him every moment, in every place, noting 
every foot-step, and every thought, and 
every emotion of his heart. If we could 
keep these thoughts constantly in our minds 
it would suppress all irreverence and pro- 
fanity, and inspire the most profound rever- 
ential awe. Such a constant sense of the 
divine presence and of accountibility to 
him, appears to be what Paul attributed to 
Moses, when he says, " he endured as seeing 
him who is invisible. " 

3. It should be remarked in conclusion, 
that the fear of God, as it has been des- 



352 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book III. 



cribcd, stands opposed to irreverence and 
profanity, wliicii is interdicted by the third 
commandment. " Thou shalt not take the 
name of the Lord thy God in vain : for the 
Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh 
his name in vain. " If men feared God, as 
the Bible requires, there would be no pro- 
fane swearing-, no unhallowed use of the 
name of their Maker. As the fear of God 
is a solemn duty, so is profanity a fearful 
crime. 

SECTION III. 

The Duty of Prayer. 

Prayer to God is one of the most solemn 
and important duties commanded in the 
Scriptures, and demands a serious and care- 
ful investigation. There are a number of 
questions involved, which must be noticed, 
to give a full and clear view of the subject. 

I. What is prayer ? 

Prayer is the act of asking God for such 
things as we desire for ourselves and oth- 
ers, which are according to his will. Dr. 
Dwight says prayer is composed of " Adora- 
tion, Confession, Petition, and Thanksgiv- 
ing." It is true that these are likely to be 
embraced in the form of all extended 
prayers, and it is most natural that they 
should. It is in the highest degree appro- 
priate to employ them all when we address 
the Supreme Being on all occasions of 
formal worship. 

In attempting to present our desires to 
God, in the form of a request or petition, 
God is brought directly before the mind, 
and how natural, how appropriate is it, on 
attempting to bring the eye of the mind to 
look God in the face, that the attempt be 
made with a deep feeling, and some form of 
adoration ? So if we ask God to forgive 
our sins, and pardon our short comings, it 
appears almost impossible that it should 
be done, without confessing them, even be- 
yond the confession which is implied in the 
petition for a pardon. In like manner, if 
we ask God for continued or increased 
grace, in any form of a blessing, how nat- 



ural and how appropriate to accompany 
the petition with thanks for the blessings 
which we have already received at his hand. 
This is all true, and all admitted, but it 
still appears that it is what Dr. Dwight 
calls " petition," asking, that constitutes 
the prayer. It must appear that prayer is 
ojEFered, under some circumstances, in which 
the mind is not conscious of any exercise 
or emotion of either adoration or thanks- 
giving, and in such case, it is the asking 
that constitutes the prayer. Prayer, then, 
may exist without being accompanied by 
any conscious adoration or thanksgiving, 
but adoration and thanksgiving, in ever so 
lively exercise, do not constitute prayer, 
without petition or asking God for what 
we desire. When Peter found himself sink- 
ing, and cried out, Lord save or I perish," 
his mind did not go through any formal 
states of adoration and thanksgiving. This 
remark will apply to a large number of 
occasions for ejaculatory prayer. It is 
also true that prayer is, in Scripture lan- 
guage, expressed by the terms, calling up- 
on God, but it is never described by the 
expression, adoring God. 

Gen. iv. 26 : " Then began men to call 
upon the name of the Lord." Chap. xxi. 
33 : " And Abraham planted a grove in 
Beer-sheba, and called there on the name 
of the Lord, the everlasting God." 

Eom. x. 13 : " Whosoever shall call 
upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." 

1 Cor. i. 2 : " Ail that in every place 
call on Jesus Christ our Lord." 

Prayer is also called asking. Christ 
says, " Matt. vii. 7 : " Ask, and it shall be 
given you." Again, in giving directions in 
regard to prayer, he said, chap. vi. 8 : 
" Your Father knoweth what things ye 
have need of before ye ask him." Chap, 
xxi. 22 : " All things whatsoever ye shall 
ask in prayer, believing, ye shall have." 

Luke xi. 13 : " If ye then, being evil, 
know how to give good gifts unto your 
children, how much more shall your heav- 
enly Father give the Holy Spirit to them 
that ask him?" 



CHAP. II.] 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



353 



John xiv. 14 : " If ye shall ask anything 
in my name, I will do it." Chap. xvi. 24 : 
" Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my 
name : ask, and ye shall receive, that your 
joy may be full." 

James i. 5 : " If any of you lack wisdom, 
let him ask of God, that giveth to all men 
liberally, and upbraideth not ; and it shall 
be given him." 

1 John V. 14 : " And this is the confi- 
dence that we have in him, that, if we ask 
anything according to his will, he heareth 
us." 

The above Scriptures have been adduced 
for the simple purpose of presenting prayer 
in its true light ; it is calling upon God, it 
is asking God for such things as we need, 
and as he has promised to give. It is not 
promised that if we adore, or if we render 
thanks, we " shall be saved," or that we 
"shall receive," but to such as " call," or 
" ask," is the promise made. Adoration 
and thanksgiving are usually joined with 
prayer, but they appear to be distinct acts 
of worship, which may be performed with- 
out prayer, and it is the calling, and the 
asking which constitutes the prayer. That 
adoration and thanksgiving will be ren- 
dered to God in heaven, after our prayers 
shall be exchanged for praise, and our com- 
plaints, for songs of joy, there can be no 
doubt. But it is evident that prayer, that 
is, calling upon God, asking God for favors, 
implies something more than merely ask- 
ing in a form of words. There have, no 
doubt, been many forms of words addressed 
to God, asking for the most appropriate 
things, in most appropriate words, in which 
there was no prayer, for want of the men- 
tal and moral element of prayer. This 
renders it necessary to point out more par- 
ticularly the nature of acceptable prayer, 
which is acceptable to God, such as God 
will answer. 

1. There must be a true and deep sense 
of our want, our spiritual poverty and 
helplessness. Calling upon God, asking 
God for gifts without a sense of needing 
them, without feeling that we must have 
23 



them or perish, would be mockery. Such 
prayers in the ear of God would be empty 
words, and our hearts must remain just as 
empty after repeating them as before. 

2. There must he a clear apprehension 
of God's universal presence and everywhere 
operating Providence. This thought is of 
more importance than some may be willing 
to allow on first thought. If men call un- 
der the impression that God is somewhere 
else, they may call as loud as the priests of 
Baal, and with no better success. True 
prayer contains the idea of a present God 
of infinite fullness. 

3. Calling upon God must be accom- 
panied by a heart abandonment of all sin. 
There must be such a submission to God 
as is implied in a purpose of heart to for- 
sake every sin, and do every duty. With- 
out this state of mind, no prayer can be 
offered that will reach the ear of God. 
This is settled by inspiration. 

Psal. Ixvi. 18 : " If I regard iniquity in 
my heart the Lord will not hear me." 

By iniquity, is meant sin of any kind 
and degree. No matter how great or how 
small, how many or how few, where there 
is sin there is iniquity. To regard iniquity 
in the heart, is to cherish it, by a consent 
to its existence, by a purpose to practice it, 
or a desire for its indulgence. We may 
regard iniquity in our hearts in various 
ways. 

(1,) We may regard iniquity in our 
hearts by a simple want of effort to search 
it out and expel it. Indifference is a crime ; 
not to search the heart and war against all 
sin in it, is to give it aid and comfort, to 
cherish it. 

(2.) We may regard iniquity in our hearts, 
by a consent of the will that it remain there. 
The consent of the will may be a tacit 
consent — consent by silence. We may 
know that sin is at work in our hearts, and' 
not cry out to God against it, and oppose - 
it. 

(3.) We may regard iniquity in our 
hearts by a direct purpose to practice it, as 
occasion or opportunity may offer. JSTo 



354 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book III. 



doubt many have lived for years in the in 
dulgence of a secret purpose to commit par- 
ticular sins, which they never committed 
only in heart, for want of an occasion or 
opportunity. 

(4.) We may regard iniquity in our 
hearts by cherishing a desire for the indul- 
gence of sin, and by even regarding it as 
desirable, without committing the act. 
There are many whoso principles, whose 
love of virtue or hatred of vice, do not re- 
strain them, who are restrained by the fear 
of detection and the dread of consequences. 
Such are like the boy who looks wishfully 
over the fence as he passes the fruit garden, 
and would rob it, if he dared so to do. 

(5.) We may regard iniquity in our 
hearts by a deliberate purpose of neglecting 
duty. We may sin by omitting what we 
ought to do, as well as by doing what we 
ought not to do. 

4. To pray acceptably, and to receive an 
answer to prayer, we must ask for such 
things only as are according to the will of 
God. The fact that we may err on this 
point, renders it important to offer our 
prayers on all subjects where there is a 
possibility of erring, with the expressed or 
implied submission, " not my will, but thine 
be done." Some things we know are ac- 
cording to the will of God ; We know that 
it is God's will to grant personal salvation 
to all who pray for it in sincerity. No 
man, when he prays in sincerity for per- 
sonal salvation, prays against sin, and for 
l^reservation from perdition, can with pro- 
•priety say, " not my will, but thine be 
done." In such a case, such words would 
be the very language of unbelief, or strong 
doubt, to say the least. But in regard to 
many things for which it is proper to pray, 
as a general principle, it may not be con- 
sistent in particular cases that God should 
hear the prayer. So all prayers must 
■ come within the general rules which God 
has given us to guide our conduct. The 
condition of successful prayer, is stated 
thus by St. John. 

1. John V. 14 : " And this is the confi- 



dence we have in him, that if we ask any- 
thing according to his will, he heareth us." 
What then are the general rules for asking 
according to his will. 

(1.) The will of God must restrict an- 
swer to prayer to what is for our good. 
What is for our good God is the best judge. 
We ought not to desire the privilege of ask- 
ing what God sees not for our good. Per- 
sons often honestly desire what would ruin 
them. We cannot tell, in advance, the in- 
fluence, which certain possessions, positions 
and attainments, would have upon our piety. 
(2.) The will of God must limit answers 
to prayer to what is in harmony with the 
laws, moral and physical, which he has es- 
tablished for the government of the uni- 
verse. It is better that a person who vio- 
lates the laws of his nature, should be sick, 
than that God should keep him well in an- 
swer to prayer by suspending those laws, 
and thus indulging him in their wilful vio- 
lation. It is better that an idle man should 
have no harvest, than for God to give him 
one in answer to prayer, without labor. It 
is better that a soul should perish, than that 
God should save it in answer to prayer in 
violation of one of the principles of his moral 
government. 

(3.) The will of God must restrict an- 
swers to prayer to what is in harmony with 
the good of the whole moral universe. God 
is the righteous moral governor of the whole. 
If God should save one soul in answer to 
prayer, in violation to the moral law which 
he has established for the government of 
mind, it would subvert his government. If 
God should go outside of the plan of re- 
demption to grasp and save a soul, in an- 
swer to our prayers, it would not only sub- 
vert the plan, but might throw the moral 
universe into confusion. If angels see us, 
and know when one sinner repents, as they 
clearly do, the eyes of a thousand worl(fa 
may be on us. 

But some things are according to his will, 
and these we may ask for and receive. To 
learn what they are, wo must go to his word, 
and consult the record of his will, and of 



CHAp. II. 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD, 



355 



his promises. The following items are 
named. 

(1.) The forgiveness of our own sins. It 
is th3 will of God to pardon every sinner 
of every class and degree, if they ask through 
faith in Jesus Christ. " Let the wicked for- 
sake his way, and the unrighteous man his 
thoughts : and let him return unto the Lord 
and he will have mercy upon him ; and to 
our God, for he will abundantly pardon." 
Isa. Iv. 7. 

(2.) The sanctiflcation of the soul is ac 
cording to the will of God. 

" This is the will of God, even your sanc- 
tiflcation." 1 Thes. iv. 3. 

" And the very God of peace sanctify you 
wholly ; and I pray God your whole spirit 
and soul and body be preserved blameless 
unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ 
Faithful is he that calleth you, who also 
will do it." 1 Thes. v. 23, 24. 

(3.) Temporal blessings, as food and ray- 
ment. " Seek ye first the kingdom of God 
and all these things shall be added unto 
you." Matt. vi. 33. "Give us this day our 
daily bread." Matt. vi. 11. 

(4.) Comfort and support under all our 
trials. 

" As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing." 
2 Cor. vi. 10. 

"Is any among you af3icted, let him pray." 
James v. 13. 

(5.) "Wisdom, grace and strength to do 
our duty. " If any of you lack wisdom, 
let him ask of God that giveth to all men 
liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be 
given him." James i. 5. 

(6.) Success in our efforts to promote the 
work of God, in the salvation of others, so 
far as God can save others, consistently with 
the terms of the Gospel, and the freedom of 
the human will. God will move upon the 
minds of sinners in answer to the prayers 
of his saints, if they have faith. Sinners 
can and often do resist, but some will yield 
when God moves. These are but some of 
the things included within the will of God 
in regard to prayer. 

5. Prayer must have the crowning virtue 



of faith. Faith was so fully explained un- 
der the head of justification by faith, that 
but little need be said in this place. 

An experienced Christian's faith ought to 
rise higher in degree, and comprehend a 
wider range of objects than simple justify- 
ing faith, exercised at the time of conversion. 
Its principle element of power is strong con- 
fidence in God, in his promises made in 
Christ Jesus, and this is attained by living 
near to God, walking with God, communing 
with him in prayer. 

II. The obligation to pray is clear and 
universal. All mankind are required to 
pray. 

1. God has commanded us to pray in his 
word. To adduce all the proof texts on 
this point, would be to transcribe a large 
portion of the Scriptures. A few decisive 
passages will be sufficient. 

Isa. Ivi. 7 : "My house shall be called 
a house of prayer for all people." 

Peal. Ixv. 2 : " thou that hearest prayer, 
unto thee shall all flesh come." 

Isa. Iv. 6 : " Seek ye the Lord while he 
may be found, call ye upon him while he is 
near. " 

Matt. vi. 9 : " After this manner there- 
fore pray ye." 

Luke xviii. 1 : " He spake a parable unto 
them to this end, that men ought always to 
pray and not to faint." 

Eph. vi. 18, 19 : "Praying always with 
all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, 
and watching thereunto with all persever- 
ance and supplication for all saints ; and 
for me, that utterance may be given unto 
me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to 
make known the mystery of the Gospel." 

Phil. iv. 6 : "Be careful for nothing ; but 
in everything by prayer and supplication, 
with thanksgiving, let your request be made 
known unto God :" 

Col. iv. 2 : " Continue in prayer, and 
watch in the same with thanksgiving." 

1. Thes. V. 17 : " Pray without ceasing. 

1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, 3, 8 : "I exhort therefore, 
that, flrst of all, supplications, prayers, in- 
tercessions, and giving of thanks, be made 



356 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book IL 



for all men. For kings, and for all that are 
in authority ; that we may lead a quiet and 
peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 
For this is good and acceptable in the sight 
of God our Saviour. I will therefore that 
men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, 
without wrath and doubting." 

The above texts are sufficient to prove, 
boy end a doubt, that the duty of prayer is 
Cujoiued in the Scriptures. 

2. We have the example of the pious of 
all ages to enforce the duty of prayer, and 
to stimulate us in its performance. A few 
examples from the patriarchs will be in 
place. These are important, as they are 
gathered from a period when there was no 
written law as is supposed, but when God 
talked with men. 

Gen. xii. 7, 8 : " And the Lord appeared 
unto Abram, and said. Unto thy seed will I 
give this land : and there builded he an al- 
tar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him. 
And he removed from thence unto a moun- 
tain on the east of Beth-el, and pitched his 
tent, having Beth-el on the west, and Hai 
on the east ; and there he builded an altar 
unto the Lord, and called upon the name of 
the Lord." 

Gen. xiii. 3, 4 : " And he went on his 
journeys from the south, even to Beth-el, 
unto the place where his tent had been at 
the beginning, between Beth-el and Hai. 
Unto the place of the altar, which he had 
made there at the first : and there Abram 
called on the name of the Lord." 

From the above it appears that Abram 
was a man of prayer. Let us now look at 
the life of Isaac. It is said of him when 
he removed to Beer-sheba, Gen. xxvi. 25 : 
" And he builded an altar there, and called 
upon the name of the Lord, and pitched his 
tent there : and there Isaac's servants dig- 
ged a well." 

Jacob pursued the same course of build- 
ing altars and of calling upon God, as will 
be seen by referring to Gen. xxxiii. 18-20. 
and XXXV. 1-7. 

That David and Solomon, Elijah and all 
the prophets, were men of prayer, no one 



can doubt who consults the sacred record. 
That John the Baptist taught his disciples 
to pray we have undoubted proof, Luke xi. 
1 ; and that Christ led a life of prayer, is 
equally plain. 

If an apostolic example needs to be ad- 
ded, we have it set forth in the words of 
Paul. 1 Thes. iii. 10 : *' Night and day 
praying exceedingly that we might see your 
face, and might perfect that which is lack- 
ing in your faith ?" 

At the present day, those who maintain 
prayer, as a habit of life, and those alone, 
are admitted by common consent to be the 
pious of earth. 

3. The duty of prayer has its foundation 
in reason, and may be seen to be suited to 
our relation to God, and wonderfully adapt- 
ed to the other parts of the economy of 
Gospel salvation, and suited to promote 
piety and devotion. 

(1.) Prayer is suited to the relation we 
sustain to God. God is the author of all 
being, and the source of all blessedness ; 
while we are his creatures, receiving all the 
good we enjoy, from him. He is inde- 
pendent, possessing all fullness in himself ; 
while we are dependent, helpless, destitute, 
and unworthy of the least of his favors, ren- 
dering every good we receive at his hand, a 
mercy unmerited by us. 

(2.) Prayer, in its very exercise, is admi- 
rably adapted to preserve a knowledge of 
the true God, and to keep man's erratic mind 
from running into idolatry. It has been 
seen that prayer implies an apprehension of 
God's universal presence and everywhere 
operative power. To pray is to bring God 
directly before the mind, in all the infinity 
of his attributes, so far as the human mind 
can grasp an idea of the infinite God. To 
assign to prayer no higher sphere than a 
simple mental exercise, and it must be clear 
that the mind could not exercise itself in 
any more effectual way, to preserve its own 
right idea and feeling of the eternal God. 
Some writers object to allowing that prayer 
has any efficiency in itself, to improve the 
moral condition of the mind, and yet they 



I 



CHAP. II.] 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



357 



would not hesitate to recommend contem- 
plation, as a means of promoting a right 
state of mind. On the same principle may 
an honest effort to bring the mind into sym- 
pathy with God in prayer, tend to shut out 
an intrusive world, and quicken our appre- 
hension of God, aside from any direct an- 
swer to our petitions. 

(3.) The exercise of prayer must promote 
a sense of our dependence upon God, which 
it is all important to keep fully awake in 
the mind. It has been seen that prayer im- 
plies this sense of dependence, that there is 
no true prayer without it. This being the 
case, it must follow, upon the principles of 
mental philosophy, that to give expression 
to this sense of dependence in prayer, will 
tend to preserve and even increase this feel- 
ing of dependence ; while to restrain it, by 
allowing it no practical expression, will tend 
to cause it to die away. 

(4.) Prayer, upon the principles advanced 
above, must tend to promote devotion. It 
will produce this result as a mere mental 
habit, allowing it to be performed with hon 
esty of intention. Devotion to the world, 
a.nd constantly occupying the mind with 
worldly matters, will increase wordly mind- 
edness : and so the constant habit of ab 
stracting the mind from the matters of the 
world, and the putting forth of an effort to 
concentrate the thoughts and desires on God 
in prayer, must tend to lessen worldly mind- 
edness, and increase a disposition to worship, 
and a deeper feeling of devotion, when we 
attempt it. 

(5.) Prayer, as a required duty, is pecu- 
liarly adapted to help the exercise of faith, 
which, in the Gospel, is the fundamental con- 
dition of salvation. God has seen proper 
1 offer salvation to sinners, in the Gospel, 
through Jesus Christ, only on condition of 
faith. The exercise of prayer is the most 
suitable method of which the human mind 
can conceive, for the development of faith. 
This, it would seem, the mind must appre- 
hend, and feel in its own exercise, in attempt- 
ing to believe unto righteousness. 

It will be found a difficult matter to ex- 



ercise saving faith in God through Jesus 
Christ, in the cool silent view which intelli- 
gence may take of the facts and interests 
involved, however clear that view may be. 
The mind feels the need of some exercise 
beyond an abstract effort to believe ; it feels 
the want of some exercise, method, or form 
through which to put forth its effort to be- 
lieve unto righteousness. This want is met 
in the required duty of prayer. Aside from 
the fact that it is a form and an exercise, in 
connection with which the mind puts forth 
its effort of faith, it is a bringing together 
in the mind, a view of God, to whom we 
pray ; of Christ and his atonement, in whose 
name we pray; and the Holy Ghost, through 
whose assistance we pray ; and our own un- 
worthiuess, weakness and wants, in view of 
which we plead, all seen through the light 
of God's gracious promises. If we view 
prayer in this point of light, it is not possi- 
ble for the mind to conceive of a more ap- 
propriate and powerful help to the exercise 
of faith. 

(6.) The mental and moral state of the 
soul, which is necessary in order to offer ac- 
ceptable prayer to God, as required in the 
Scriptures, is just that state which renders 
us proper recipients of his saving grace. 
Prayer is not designed to make God ac- 
quainted with our necessities ; he knows 
what we need before we ask him. Prayer 
is not designed to persuade God, in a man- 
ner to induce a willingness on his part to 
have mercy upon us and bless us ; he is al- 
ready willing, or he would not have said to 
us, " ask and it shall be given you ; ask, 
and receive, that your joy may be full." 
The reason why men are not blessed and 
saved, is, they refuse to let God bless and 
save them. They will not put themselves 
in a position before God so that he can save 
them, consistently with his moral govern- 
ment. God can no more save a sinner with- 
out the sinners own act of willing to be 
saved, and in the absence of a deep sense 
of the necessity of salvation, than he can 
dissolve the laws of his own moral universe. 
When the sinner comes within reach of 



358 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book hi 



God's economy, by willing to be saved in 
God's way, and by feeling a deep sense of 
the necessity of salvation, lie will pray to 
God for it, and praying he wall be saved, for 
" whosoever calleth upon the name of the 
Lord shall be saved." 

God can no more save a prayerless soul, 
than a soul willing to be saved, feeling the 
necessity of salvation, deeply impressed 
with the guilt of sin, and groaning for de- 
liverance, could live in that state without 
prayer. 

These remarks have not been made be- 
cause it is believed that the simple fact that 
God has commanded us to pray, is not suf- 
ficient, of itself, to make it our absolute 
duty so to do. In view of the estabhshed 
inspiration of the Scriptures, when a com- 
mand is clear, as is the command to pray, 
there is no need of going behind the record 
of the command, to look for a binding obli- 
gation ; yet, as there is an admitted differ- 
ence between the fact that God has com- 
manded a given act, and the reason for 
which he has commanded it, men will go 
behind the command and inquire after the 
reason. It may be right so to do, if it be 
conducted with proper respect for the au- 
thority of the written word, and so as not 
to lessen confidence in it, and to gratify this 
disposition to inquire into the reason of 
things, the above remarks have been made. 
It is believed the reasons given are true in 
themselves, whether they are the true rea- 
sons why God has commanded us to pray or 
not. 

The reasons which have been assigned for 
the institution of prayer, must also serve as 
a sufficient answer to the objections which 
have sometimes been urged against prayer 
These objections are based upon the fact 
that God is infinitely wise and good, and be 
ing so, will bestow upon us what is proper 
for us. If the preceding views are correct, 
no such objection can stand. They annihi 
late every objection of the class. 

III. The times, seasons, and occasions for 
prayer demand attention. 

The general duty of prayer, as urged in 



the Scriptures, must imply the obligation 
of maintaining a state of mind, at all times 
consistent with the exercise of prayer 
Some express this idea by calling it " a 
praying frame of mind." Others denote it 
by the expression, " spirit of prayer." We 
ought so to live, and so to keep our minds, 
as to be able to engage in prayer at every 
moment. This may be what Paul means by 
the command to " pray without ceasing," 
beyond an injunction to attend to prayer at 
all appropriate set times. It may be re- 
garded as a fixed principle, that he who goes 
where he cannot pray, goes where he has no 
business, and that he who allow^s himself to 
get into a mental state, in which he cannot 
bring his mind at once into the exercise of 
prayer, is in a position false to himself, and 
false to God. With the idea of the spirit 
of prayer, perpetually pervading the mind, 
let us proceed to point out the seasons and 
occasions for its practical development. 

1. There will arise in the experience of 
life, numberless times and occasions for mo- 
mentary prayer, which cannot be arranged 
under any specific rule or division of time. 
When about our labor, when walking by 
the way, when sitting in our domestic circle, 
in the assembly of saints or of sinners, in 
the moment of surprise or danger, or in the 
moment of a happy occurrence or thought, 
we can send up our prayer to God. Pray- 
ers thus uttered, or thought without utter- 
ance, have been called " ejaculatory pray- 
ers. " If the heart be kept right, such 
prayers may be kept playing upon the ear 
of God every minute in the day, without 
interfering with any of the lawful transac- 
tions of life : 

"■ Prayer is the soul's sincere desire, 

Utter'd, or unexpressed ; 
The motion of a hidden fire. 

That trembles in the breast. " 

There are a number of examples of these 
ejaculatory prayers found in the Scriptures. 
A beautiful example is recorded of Joseph. 
When he saw his brother Benjamin, he said, 
" God be gracious to thee, my son. '■' 



CHAP. II.] 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



359 



2. Private or secret prayer is enjoined in 
the Scriptures. It is sufficient to appeal to 
Christ on this subject. 

Matt. vi. 5,6: " And when thou prayest, 
thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are : for 
they love to pray standing in the synagog- 
ues and in the corners of the streets, that 
they may be seen of men. Yerily I say 
unto you, They have their reward. But 
thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy 
closet, and, when thou hast shut thy door, 
pray to thy Father which is in secret ; and 
thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall re- 
ward thee openly. " 

On this important text it should be re- 
marked, 

(1.) It does not forbid public prayer, as 
some have pretended to understand it. It 
affirms only of those prayers which men offer 
to God by themselves, as individual acts of 
worship, without joining with others. It 
condemns the habit of selecting a public 
place for offering such prayers to God. It 
requires that all such prayers so far as may 
be, should be offered in seclusion. 

(2.) It does not institute such prayers as 
a new thing, but takes it for granted that 
the practice of offering such prayers was 
common, and would continue so. At the 
same time, it adds to the custom the sanc- 
tion and authority of Christ. 

To the above may be added, the authori- 
ty of Christ's example. At one time it is 
said, Matt, xiv. 23 : " When he had sent 
the multitude away, he went up into a 
mountain apart to pray. " 

At another time it is said, Mark. i. 35 : 
" In the morning, rising up a great while 
before day, he went out and departed into a 
solitary place, and there prayed. " 

Again, it is said, Luke v. 16 : " He with- 
drew himself into the wilderness and prayed." 
And in Chap. vi. 12, it is said, " It came 
to pass in those days, that he went out into 
a mountain to pray, and continued all night 
in prayer to God. " 

Other Scriptural authority might be ad- 
duced, but the above is sufficient to settle 
the question of the duty of secret prayer 



On the general duty of secret prayer, it may 
be remarked, 

(1.) Every person, so far as circumstan- 
ces will allow, should have some place which 
is to him his closet of prayer. The spirit 
of the command requires this. Without it, 
prayer will be likely to be neglected. 

(2.) As no time is settled by the word, 
for the performance of this daty, it demands 
a reasonable construction and application, 
in this particular, on the part of Christians. 
The fact that no law prescribes how many 
times, an.l at what hours secret prayer shall 
be performed, shows the wisdom of the Law- 
giver. No rule could settle these points, 
which would not be impossible to some, or 
diminish devotion with others. These 
points are settled specifically by the law of 
Mahomet, and the result is, prayer with 
them, has become a mere form. It being- 
left by Christ to be settled by the enlighten- 
ed judgment, under a sense of accountability 
to God, and a general rule requiring secret 
prayer, which judgment will be made in view 
of surrounding circumstances, and tho 
strength of the feeling of piety, the tendency 
is to promote the spirit of devotion more 
than any specific rule could do. 

3. Family prayer demands attention. 
The obligation to maintain family prayer 
has been denied by some, on the ground of 
a want of an express command. To give 
force to the objection, it must be maintain- 
ed that nothing is of binding obligation, for 
which an express command cannot be cited . 
This simple thought is sufficient to show 
that whether family prayer be obligatory or 
not, the objection does not prove that it is 
not, and that it is not safe to rely upon it 
as a justification for neglecting it. Many 
things are admitted to be duties, for which 
no specific command can be found. There 
is no explicit command for observing the 
Christian Sabbath, yet it will be made to 
appear that there is no want of obligation 
in regard to it. It is admitted that there is 
no command which says in so many words 
" thou shalt pray in thy family, in the morn- 
But the obligation so 



360 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book III. 



to do, is as certain and binding as it would 
be, if we had such command. But the 
reader, no doubt, is more anxious to see the 
proof than to hear it affirmed that it ex- 
ists. The proof must be stated briefly. 

(1.) Family worship is the original form 
of worship, was instituted before any written 
law was given, when God talked with men, 
and gave them oral directions, and it has 
never been repealed by any written law 
which ever has, or now exists. The wor- 
ship of Abel could have been nothing more 
than family worship. During the entire 
patriarchal age, there is no distinct law 
found for public worship. Nor is there any 
very clear proof that it was maintained, 
while there is no want of proof that family 
worship was maintained in all the pious 
families of which we have any history. 

Noah built an altar and worshipped God 
when he came out of the Ark. That was 
family worship. It was shown that Abra- 
ham, Isaac and Ja cob built altars, and call- 
ed upon the name of the Lord, in all places 
where they pitched their tents. These facts 
were noticed in the second division of the 
argument, in proof of the general duty of 
prayer, to which the reader is referred with- 
out repeating them. Those were all cases 
of family worship. 

It is equally plain that Job had his fam- 
ily altar. 

Job. i. 4, 5 : " And his sons went and 
feasted in their houses, every one his day ; 
and sent and called for their three sisters, 
to eat and to drink with them. And it was 
so, vv^hen the days of their feasting were gone 
about, that Job sent and sanctified them, 
and rose up early in the morning, and offer- 
ered bnrnt-offerings according to the num- 
ber of them all : for Job said, It may be 
that my sons have sinned, and cursed God 
in their hearts. Thus did Job continually." 

This was purely a family concern ; the 
offerings were for his own family, and for 
no others. It is said that Job did this con- 
tinually. If it should be supposed that 
verse 6, refers to a public assembly of good 
people to worship, it only strengthens the 



argument, by proving that Job had a fam- 
ily altar at the same time, when a public 
altar was maintained in the community. Be 
that as it may, it is certain that Job had his 
family altar, at which he and his sons wor- 
shipped, and where he is said to have sanc- 
tified them. It is clear then, beyond a doubt, 
that the worship of God, was, originally, 
family worship only. There was no law 
for public worship until the tabernacle was 
built. It must be plain that worship in the 
families of the patriarchs, was conducted 
under divine sanction, and authority, for God 
communed with them. But the establish- 
ment of public worship in the tabernacle, 
did not annul family worship. There is no 
such intimation upon the record, and the 
conclusion is, the duty to maintain family 
devotion, is just as binding on the head of 
every family now, as it ever was. This 
view, and the whole argument is strength- 
ened, by the fact that the establishment of 
public worship in the tabernacle, and after- 
wards, in the temple, furnished only a sin- 
gle place of worship for a whole nation. 

The Scriptures of the Old Testament con- 
tain no express law for public worship, ex- 
cept at the tabernacle and the temple. All 
the males were required to go to Jerusalem 
three times to worship during each year, 
but this cannot be supposed to be all the 
worship they performed. Synagogues arc 
believed, not to have been opened in differ- 
ent cities and towns for instruction and wor- 
ship, until after the return of the Jews from 
their captivity in Babylon, which was al- 
most a thousand years after the erection of 
the tabernacle. Had they no forms and oc- 
casions of worship during this period, only 
what transpired at the national altar ? It 
cannot be. Their worship must have been 
eminently a family worship, after the pat- 
tern of the patriarchs, which was its origi- 
nal character, and which has never been 
repealed. And it having been instituted 
among the patriarchs, by God himself, as 
may be presumed, and always having been 
practiced by pious families, it never need- 
ed any express command to institute it. 



CHAP. IL] 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



361 



(2.) Family religion is most distinctly 
marked in the Scriptures of the Old Testa- 
ment, as an essential part of the duties 
which humanity owes to God. God gives 
the following testimony to the good charac- 
ter of Abraham. 

Gen. xviii. 19 : " For I know him, that 
he will command his children and his house- 
hold after him, and they shall keep the way 
of the Lord, to do justice and judgment ; 
that the Lord may bring upon Abraham 
that which he hath spoken of hira." 

"What is here affirmed Abraham would 
do, includes the worship of God. No man 
can be said to keep the way of the Lord 
who does not worship hira. At that time 
there was no house of God, no public altar, 
and that Abraham could do what it is 
affirmed he would do, without a domes- 
tic altar, and family worship, is impossible. 

When God had given the Israelites a 
written law, and a formal religion, he at 
once impressed it upon the family institution, 
the fountain of public morals. Keep in 
mind the fact that the family was the only 
school, and the only place for religious in- 
struction, that was or could be available to 
any considerable extent, and that instruc- 
tion was oral, there being no books for the 
family, not even copies of the law, and there 
will be great force in the following command 
and directions. 

Deut. vi. 1-9 : " Now these are the com- 
mandments, the statutes, and the judgments, 
which the Lord your God commanded to 
teach you, that ye might do them in the land 
whither ye go to possess it : That thou 
mightest fear the Lord thy God, to keep all 
his statutes and his commandments which I 
command thee ; thou, and thy son, and thy 
son's son, all the days of thy life ; and that 
thy days may be prolonged. Hear there- 
fore, Israel, and observe to do it, that it 
may be well with thee, and that ye may in- 
crease mightily, as the Lord God of thy 
fathers hath promised thee, in the land that 
floweth with milk and honey. Hear, Is- 
rael : the Lord our God is one Lord : And 
thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all 



thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with 
all thy might. And these words, which I 
command thee this day, shall be in thine 
heart : And thou shalt teach them diligent- 
ly unto thy children, and shalt talk of them 
when thou sittest in thine house, and when 
thou walkest by the way, and when thou 
liest down, and when thou risest up. And 
thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine 
hand, and they shall be as frontlets be- 
tween thine eyes, And thou shalt write 
them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy 
gates." 

The worship of God is, beyond all doubt, 
included in what is here commanded. They 
were to teach their children God's law, even 
to love God with all their hearts. That 
could not be done without teaching them to 
worship God. Worship includes prayer, as 
one of its essential parts. 

Again, they were to teach, and religious 
instruction should never be separated from 
prayer. This whole business is limited to 
the family, and that all this could be done 
without a family altar, and family prayer, 
is impossible. The command therefore, 
clearly contains what as absolutely impo- 
ses the obligation to maintain family 
worship, as would a specific command. 

The Passover was strictly a family insti- 
tution, and was eaten by families, and not 
as a common public feast. Here then is a 
solemn religious rite, impressed upon the 
family as such, and every member of the 
family was required to take part in it. 
There are also incidental allusions to family 
religion. The family of Jesse had a family 
sacrifice yearly, as we learn from 1 Sam. xx. 
6. So we read, 2 Sam. vi. 20, that " Da- 
vid returned to bless his house," after the 
performance of important public duties. 
This was a development of family religion^ 
The history of the family transactions of 
Micah, recorded Judges, xvii. is a clear ex- 
hibition of family religion. It is true it was 
a corrupt religion, but it proves the cus- 
tom of maintaining family religion, and its 
corruption did not consist in its domestic 
character. 



362 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book IIT. 



So when the prophet, Jeremiah x. 25, 
cries to God, " Pour out thy fury upon the 
heathen that know thee not, and upon the 
families that call not on thy name," the 
language is clearly borrowed from the un- 
derstood habit, of caUing upon God in the 
family circle. In the light of these facts, 
it cannot be supposed that Christianity is 
divorced from the family institution, and 
that household worship may be wholly neg- 
lected, without any violation of its princi- 
ples and spirit. 

The Jewish religion was national, and 
comprehended every family of the nation in 
its sacriJSces upon its national altar, but 
Christianity has no such central worship, to 
which all families sustain an equal relation. 
The sacrifices offered upon the altar at Je- 
rusalem, were the sacrifices of every mem- 
ber of the nation, and the worship there of- 
fered, was on behalf of the whole nation, but 
there is no Christian worship of which this 
can be affirmed. Consider in the light of 
this fact, that the Jewish religion provided 
for daily worship. There was the morning 
and evening sacrifice, day by day contin- 
ually. But Christians have no daily wor- 
ship, unless it be celebrated at the altar of 
each family. When Christianity came and 
abolished the national altar, by which evety 
family, and every individual was held in sym- 
pathy with daily devotion, it cannot be sup- 
posed that it repealed the obligation to wor- 
ship God by families, and put out the fires 
that burned on family altars, or left the 
heads of families free to let them go out by 
neglect. 

(3.) There are general principles asserted 
in the New Testament which imply the ob- 
ligation to maintain family worship. The 
general duty of prayer is clear and is 
admitted. Some of the forms in which 
this general duty is asserted imply family 
prayer. 

1 Tim. ii. 8 : " I will therefore that men 
pray everywhere lifting up holy hands, with- 
out wrath and doubting." 

The expression " lifting up holy hands," 
is clear proof that formal prayers are meant. 



in contradistinction from mere ejaculations. 
The expression " everywhere," means, in 
evCTy proper place. It may be affirmed 
that there is no place more appropriate for 
offering prayer, than in the family circle. 
This cannot be denied. The text therefore 
imposes an obligation to pray in our fam- 
ilies, as clearly as it would if it named the 
family. If it does not command family 
prayer, it does not command prayer any- 
where. 

Eph. vi. 18 : " Praying always with all 
prayer and supplication." 

As the family prayer must be admitted 
to be appropriate in itself, the expression, 
" all prayer," must command it, or it com- 
mands no prayer. All prayer must mean 
all right and appropriate prayer, and family 
prayer is right and appropriate. 

Phil. iv. 8 : " Finally, brethren, whatso- 
ever things are true, whatsoever things are 
honest, whatsoever things are just, whatso 
ever things are pure, whatsoever things are 
lovely, whatsoever things are of good report ; 
if there be any virtue, and if there be any 
praise, think on these things." 

Family prayer is true, honest, just, pure, 
lovely, and of good report, and calculated to 
promote virtue of every kind. 

Eph. vi. 4 : " And, ye fathers provoke 
not your children to wrath : but bring 
them up in the nurture and admonition of 
the Lord." 

The nurture and admonition of the Lord 
must include worship. This command is 
not complied with, unless children are 
brought up in the habit of worshipping God. 
Moreover, a command to do a thing, in- 
cludes the use of the best means to accom- 
plish the end. But there is no one thing 
which parents can do, which will contrib- 
ute so much in the work of bringing up 
their children, in the nurture and admoni- 
tion of the Lord, as to maintain daily fam- 
ily worship with them. It may be doubted, 
if parents can bring up their children, as 
required, without a family altar. 

This argument might be much extended, 
but it is not necessary. The general useful- 



CHAP. II.] 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



363 



ness of family prayer need not be' argued, 
for it will not be denied by Christians. 

If the reader will consult Acts x. 1, 2, 
30, he will learn that there was in Cesarea, 
a pious Gentile, who feared God with all his 
house, and that he prayed in his house. 
Now if one who could have had no more 
light than the Jewish religion furnished, 
could have as much family religion, as ap- 
pears to have been in the family of Corne- 
lius, should not a Christian have enough to 
keep the form of family prayer ? 

4. Public prayer is most clearly enjoined. 
Public prayers have constituted a part of 
all religious always. It was common among, 
the Jews, and was incorporated by the 
Apostles, as a part of Christian worship. 
It is agreed by all writers on the worship 
of the early Christians, that their meetings 
were commenced by offering prayers to God. 
It is also clear from some remarks made by 
Paul, that prayer constituted a considerable 
portion of public worship, and that the 
membership were accustomed to partici- 
pate in it generally. I Cor. xi. 4, 5, and xiv. 
14-17. 

As prayer is admitted to be a part of 
pul3lic worship, it need not be enlarged upon 
as a distinct duty, as public worship itself 
is of sufficient importance to entitle it to a 
separate consideration. 

SECTION IV. 

The Duty of Maintaining the Public 
WoTO^iip of God, 

I. What is worship ? 

1. Worship, in its most restricted and 
sacred sense, is the devotion of the heart to 
God. It includes the emotions of admira- 
tion, thanksgiving and praise. It is usual- 
ly, if not always, accompanied with confes- 
sion and prayer. In formal worship these 
are all blended. When the heart worships, 
it will at proper times and places, find ex- 
pression through external and visible forms 
and signs, such as attitudes of body and 
verbal expressions and songs. Yet it should 



never be forgotten, that it is the emotion of 
the soul that renders worship acceptable to 
God. 

Jesus said to the woman of Samaria, 
John iv. 23, 24: "Woman, believe me, the 
hour Cometh, when ye shall neither in this 
mountain, nor yet in Jerusalem, worship 
the Father. But the hour cometh, and now 
is, when the true worshippers shall worship 
the Father in spirit and in truth : for the 
Father seeketh such to worship him. God 
is a spirit : and they that worship him must 
worship him in spirit and in truth." 

To say the least, worship is an exercise 
of the mind, requiring entire sincerity and 
pure and warm affection. 

2. Worship, in a more general sense, is, 
the assembling of a professed Christian con- 
gregration for the purpose of giving and 
receiving religious instruction, and offering 
prayers, homage, thanksgiving and praise 
to God. 

The usual exrecises of such an assembly, 
in popular language, is called public wor- 
ship.. It may not be worship with all, but 
with some it is real worship. Preaching 
and hearing the Gospel is not worship in it- 
self, in a strict sense, yet it may be rendered 
a help to worship, and we may worship 
God while preaching and hearing. In pqpu- 
lar language, preaching the Gospel is in- 
cluded as a part of public worship, and 
there can be no doubt that religious instruc- 
tion is one of the leading objects which Di- 
vine wisdom had in view in commanding 
public worship. Public instruction is con- 
nected with the worship of God in both the 
Old and New Testaments. 

II. The obligation to maintain public 
worship, as above described. 

The duty of maintaining public Christian 
assemblies is learned from various sources. 

1. It was a settled principle in the Jew- 
ish economy, and it never has been repealed. 

2. The practice of weekly assemblies had 
the sanction of Christ's example. 

It is said of him, Luke iv. 16, "And he 
came to Nazareth, where he had been 
brought up : and, as the custom was, he 



364 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book III. 



went into the synagouge on the Sabbath- 
day, and stood up for to read." 

He was always found in the public as- 
semblies on the Jewish Sabbath. 

3. The commission which he gave to his 
ministers, to go into all the world and 
preach the Gospel to every creature, im- 
plies an obligation to maintain public 
assemblies to hear it. The very men to 
whom this commission was given, availed 
themselves of all public assemblies, as far as 
they could, to execute their Lord's com- 
mand, and they gathered congregations 
wherever they could, for the same purpose. 
It is not easy to see how the ministerial 
oflice can be made fully available, and its 
commission be fulfilled without public as- 
semblies. 

4. It is perfectly certain that the first 
Christians were in the habit of assembling 
for instruction and devotion, at least as 
often as once a week. This is clear from 
the Acts of the Apostles, and from various 
directions given in the Epistles. Indeed, 
the very name by which Christian commu- 
nities are called, is derived from the fact of 
their coming together. The word church 
means congregation. 

It is said of Paul and Barnabas, Acts xi. 
26, " that a whole year they assembled 
themselves with the church, and taught 
much people." 

5. Paul has, in one case, commanded 
public assemblies to be maintained. 

Heb. X. 25 : " Not forsaking the assem- 
bling of ourselves together, as the manner 
of some is : but exhorting one another : and 
so much the more as ye see the day ap- 
proaching." 

As public worship came down from the 
preceding dispensation, and was never inter- 
rupted, as a general practice, specific com- 
mands to maintain it were not called for, 
but the faltering of some, under a storm of 
persecution which rendered attendance dan- 
gerous to liberty and life, called out a com- 
mand in the above text. 

G. Public worship might be urged from 
its influence upon public morals. There 



can be no doubt that a well sustained 
Christian temple in any community, will do 
more to suppress vice, than the so called 
temple of civil justice. 

An enlightened and faithful ministry, with 
the occurring weekly Sabbath, will do more 
to diffuse correct religious principles and 
morals, than can be done in any other way 
with the same outlay of means. 

As crippled as the Christian pulpit is, in 
these times, from its own defects, its power 
is felt and acknowledged. This is only a 
brief outline of the ground of our obligation 
to maintain public worship. 

III. The mode of conducting public wor- 
ship is worthy of consideration. 

It is admitted that there are no specific 
rules for the regulation of public worship, in 
every particular. ISTor may we be able to 
determine, in every particular, how it was 
conducted by the Apostles and their imme- 
diate successors. And if we could so ascer- 
tain the apostolic mode, it is not clear that 
we should be bound to follow it in every 
particular. They may have pursued a par- 
ticular course, in regard to matters of no 
vital importance, which was dictated by 
the peculiar circumstances that surrounded 
them, when, had they been surrounded by 
our cricumstance, they would have pursued 
a different course. Yet it must be admitted 
that the Scriptures contain general rules, 
and that apostolic example, on all funda- 
mental matters, should be followed, so far 
as it can be ascertained. 

1. Worship should at all times be so 
conducted as to render it solemn. The 
state of mind necessary to worship God, is 
inconsistent with rudeness or levity. These 
should never be indulged in the sanctuary. 

2. "Worship should always be conducted 
orderly. " God is a God of order, and not 
of confusion." It is true we may differ in 
regard to what true order demands, yet 
what is admitted to be disorder, should 
never be allowed in the house of God. In 
order to prevent confusion, there must be a 
head to preside over the worshipping assem- 
bly, and to conduct the exercise. Without 



CHAP. II.] 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



365 



this, but few if any Christian assemblies 
would be able to proceed long without fall- 
ing into more or less disorder. 

3. Worship should be conducted upon 
the most free and simple plan. The wor- 
ship of the early Christians is said to have 
been very simple and unrestrained, all being 
allowed to occupy their gifts as time and 
circumstances permitted. It is very plain 
that the membership generally took part in 
the public exercises of ordinary Christian 
worship in the times of the Apostles. The 
manner in which Paul reproved the Corin- 
thian church, renders it certain that their 
meetings were free and open to all. 

1 Cor. xiv. 26-32: "How is it then, 
brethren? when ye come together, every 
one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, 
hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an 
interpretation. Let all things be done unto 
edifying. . If any man speak in an unkoAvn 
tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by 
three, and that by course ; and let one in- 
terpret. But if there be no interpreter, let 
him keep silence in the church : and let him 
speak to himself, and to God. Let the 
prophets speak two or three, and let the 
other judge. If anything be revealed to 
another that sitteth by, let the first hold his 
peace. For ye may all prophecy one by 
one, that all may learn, and all may be 
comforted. And the spirits of the prophets 
are subject to the prophets." 

It is certain that the evil of which the 
Apostle complains, could not have existed, 
had not their meetings been conducted upon 
a perfectly free principle. It is also clear 
that he did not condemn the principle, but 
only the abuse of it. Had Paul held that 
the freedom of their meetings was wrong 
he would have put that under the ban of his 
authority, which would have been the most 
effectual remedy, but he did no such thing, 
but told them, they might all prophecy one 
by one, that all might learn and all be com- 
forted. 

Prophesying denoted teaching, as well as 
foretelling. As religious instruction is one 
leading object of maintaining public assem- 



blies, provision should be made for it, ac- 
cording to the state of general intelligence 
in the community, and the service should be 
conducted in accordance with such provis- 
ion. Yet the people should never suppose 
that they can hire a minister to worship 
Cod for them. Every Christian must do 
his own praying, and if a church would 
maintain its vitality, it should so far adhere 
to primitive usuage, as to have at least, one 
free service every Sunday, in which the 
membership generally may take a part. 

4. Prayer was a leading part in the wor- 
ship of the primitive church, and should be 
now, and always. Dr. Mosheim, says that 
the worship of the primitive churches was 
commenced with prayer, and that other 
general prayers were offered, after the les- 
son of instruction, which consisted of the 
reading of a portion from the Scriptures, 
and a discourse from some preacher present. 
Of the character of the prayers offered, he 
says they were " the extemporaneous eSu- 
sions of a mind glowing with divine love." 
— [Commentary, Yol. I. page 185. 

Forms of prayer may, doubtless, be used 
under some circumstances, but it is very 
clear they were not in use in the first Chris- 
tian churches, and their general use must 
tend to check the ardor of the heart, and 
render devotion formal. 

5. Singing was doubtless employed in 
the worship of the early churches. There 
is no want of Scriptural sanction for the 
practice of singing, as a part of divine wor- 
ship, and as it is practised by all, except a 
few Friend Quakers, there is no need of an 
effort to prove it proper. It is a method 
of praising God, and is a great help to the 
spirit of worship. It may be employed as a 
medium of instruction, prayer and praise, 
and if well performed, may be rendered pow- 
erfully impressive to the human mind. 
Those who have the gift of song, are just as 
much bound to cultivate it, as they are to 
cultivate any other natural endowment. 



S66 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book III 



SECTION V. 
Tlte Christian Sabbath. 

As the subject of the Christian Sabbath 
is an important one, and one too, about 
which the Christian world has been divid- 
ed, it will require to be noticed to some ex- 
tent, and with a good degree of particularity^ 

Professed Christians are divided into four 
classes in regard to the Sabbath question. 

1. Those who believe we are bound to 
observe the seventh day as a Sabbath, ac- 
cording to the law given by Moses. Those 
holding this view are a small, but respecta- 
ble denomination of Christians. 

2. Those who believe that Christianity 
has abolished the Jewish Sabbath, and that 
now there is no day designated by divine 
authority as a Sabbath. 

3. Those who hold that a Sabbath is 
necessary, very important, and that the 
first day of the week is a very proper day 
to observe as a Sabbath, and that we ought 
to observe it, yet place it wholly upon the 
ground of expediency, and do not allow 
that it has been designated by divine au- 
thority. 

4. Those who hold that the Sabbath, as 
an institution, exists, and is of moral obli- 
gation, but the day on which it is to be ob- 
served, has been changed from the seventh 
to the first day of the week, by divine au- 
thority. 

This last, is the view taken by the great 
body of professed Christians, and is the 
view which is maintained in the arguments 
that follow. To do anything like justice to 
the subject, several points will have to be 
considered. 

I. The Sabbath, as an institution, is 
based upon moral principle, which lies 
back of all positive law. This may be 
maintained, as a dictate of reason, and as 
an undeniable consequence of other estab- 
lished duties. 

1. Man is naturally a religious being, 
and needs to worship God to meet the 
wants of his moral nature. This want of 



moral nature corresponds to God's claim 
upon him as his Creator. God demands 
of him religious service, and worship, in 
particular. This religious element in man's 
moral nature, is inseparable from his social 
nature, rendering the association of kin- 
dred minds necessary in worship to secure 
the highest ends of devotion ; while the 
discharge of the obligation we are under to 
God to worship him, concerns his declara- 
tive glory, and the visible interests of his 
moral government. From these facts it is 
clear that moral obligation requires a pub- 
lic religion, public altars, and public 
prayers. In addition to this, it has been 
demonstrated, in the preceding chapter, 
that we are under obligation to maintain 
the worship of God. 

2. The obligation, set forth above, re- 
quires time to discharge it. The point is 
not, how large a portion, or which portion 
of time, but the simple fact that we are mor- 
ally bound to devote a portion of our time 
to the worship of God, and the public in- 
terests of religion. That some particular 
portion needs to be designated, either by 
the appointment of God, or in some other 
way, to render the obligation practicable, 
and secure the end, is too plain to be de- 
nied. Social and public worship cannot 
be maintained without a particular time 
set apart for it, by the appointment of God, 
by common consent, or otherwise. So far 
man's way is clear in the light of his owji 
reason. But when the question is raised, 
how large a portion of time we are bound 
to devote to religion, reason fails us. This 
the mind of God alone can determine. It 
is claimed in the argument, that God has 
settled this point, by demanding one seventh. 

It is now clear that we are under moral 
obligation to devote a portion of our time 
to God, in the shape of a religious Sabbath. 
On this moral obligation the Sabbath is 
based. The obligation arises out of our 
own moral natures, and the relation we 
sustain to God, and would remain if all 
positive laws were repealed. 

Keason cannot see any natural difierence 



CHAP. II.] 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



\Q1 



in days, so as to involve a moral obligation 
to keep any particular day as a Sabbath, 
more than any other day. This depends 
upon the appointment of God. It is seen, 
then, that the fact of a Sabbath depends 
upon moral obligation, and cannot be re- 
pealed, but that the particular day upon 
which it is celebrated, depends upon posi- 
tive law, and may be changed as often as 
may suit the will of the Lawgiver. It may 
be presumed, however, that God, in making 
such appointment would be governed by 
the principle of utility, and would select 
such day as would be most impressive, and 
suggestive of the greatest number of the 
most important truths. It will be seen in 
the process of the investigation that God 
has made just such a choice of a day. 

II. The Sabbath was instituted at the 
beginning, and existed during the patri- 
archal age, from Adam to Moses. 

The first account we have of the Sab- 
bath is as follows : 

Gen. ii. 2 : " And on the seventh day 
God ended his work which he had made ; 
and he rested on the seventh day from all 
his v/ork which he had made. And God 
blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it ; 
because that in it he had rested from all 
his work which God created and made." 

In regard to this text there are two 
opinions entertained. Dr. Paley and oth- 
ers, contend that no Sabbath was given to 
man until the Israelites came out of Egypt, 
when, in the wilderness, the subject was 
first introduced. This class of opinionists, 
of course, maintain that the above text 
was written after the Sabbath was given 
through Moses, and describes what was 
done at the appointment of the Sabbath in 
the wilderness, and not what was done at 
the time of finishing the Creation, so far as 
blessing and sanctifying the seventh day 
are concerned. Of this there is no proof 
in the text ; upon its face, it appears to 
state what was done at the time of the 
completion of the work of creation, and no 
one would have ever thought of putting 
any other construction upon it, had not a 



theory first been adopted which required it. 
If it were admitted that Noah and Abra- 
ham had the Sabbath, no one would find 
any occasion to understand the text other- 
wise than as affirming that God actually 
instituted the Sabbath at the beginning. 
and gave it to Adam. The other opinion 
is that the text describes what God did at 
the completion of his work of Creation, and 
that the Sabbath existed from Adam to 
Moses. This is the view proposed to be 
defended. 

The argument naturally divides itself in- 
to two parts, embracing the reasons for de- 
nying it, and the reasons for believing it. 

1. What proof is there that there was 
no Sabbath known to men until the days 
of Moses ? The only argument that has 
any force in it, is founded upon the fact 
that no mention is made of the Sabbath, 
from the time of creation, until the time of 
Moses. It is seen that the evidence is 
wholly negative, it is a want of knowledge, 
rather than knowledge itself that is relied 
upon. It is admiiLed that the Sabbath is 
not mentioned by name, during that period, 
but this does not prove that there was no 
Sabbath. 

(1.) The history of the whole period is 
too short to allow of the mention of par- 
ticulars. A period of three hundred years 
in the religious history of one of the most 
remarkable men that ever lived is given in 
four words ; three besides the name of the 
person. " Enoch walked with God." 

(2.) After the Sabbath had been pro- 
claimed from Sinai, by the trump of God, 
and written upon a table of stone, no men- 
tion of it is made in the book of Joshua, 
Judges, Euth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, and first 
Kings. Here is a period of about five hun- 
dred years, covered by public record written 
at the time, containing no mention of the 
Sabbath. This period commences within 
forty years from the giving of the law of 
the Sabbath on Sinai. 

(3.) Circumcision is not once mentioned 
from Joshua to Jeremiah, a period of eight 
hundred years, yet there can be no doubt it 



368 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book III. 



was practiced. These remarks show how] or. 'Then was a commencement made of 
little reliance can be placed upon the fact calling,' is rightly translated. The phrase, 



that no direct mention is made of the Sab- 
bath previous to Moses. 

2. A\^hat are the reasons for believing that 
the Sabbath did exist in the patriarchal age ? xiii 

It is maintained that there arc such in- 
cidental allusions to the Sabbath, as to leave 
no doubt of its existence. 

(1.) Cain and Abel are said to have 
brought their offerings unto the Lord, " at 
the end of days." Gen. iv. 3, 4. 

The common rendering is " in process of 
time," but the literal sense of the Hebrew 
is, " at the end of daj's." The allusion is 
plain to the periodical Sabbath. Without 
reference to some particular number or 
measurement of periods by days, no partic- 
ular sense is communicated. But there is 
no other division of time to which it can 
so appropriately refer. This mode of reck- 
oning is distinctly marked upon the record 
in the appointment of the Sabbath. It is 
also in accordance with the declared sancti- 
fication of the day, that they should bring 
their offerings to God upon it. Understand 
the words, " at the end of days," to refer to 
the return of the Sabbath at the end of 
seven days, and the sense is clear, the lan- 
guage beautiful and expressive, 

(2.) The early establishment of worship 
upon the social principle, implies the Sab- 
bath as worship implies a time of worship. 

Gen. iv. 26 : " Then began men to call 
upon the name of the Lord." This must 
refer to the commencement of social or pub- 
lic worship. There must have been worship 
before this in Eden. Cain and Abel wor- 
shipped, and no doubt Seth had worshipped. 
But after the birth of Enos public worship 
was established. Then, when men began to 
multiply so as to form a community, is the 
sense. Before this it was family worship, 
as it was afterwards reduced to family 
worship again, by the waters of destruction. 
The following was given by the late pro- 
fessor Stewart of Andover, as a true trans- 
lation of the text. 

" Gen. iv. 26 : ' Then be^an men to call,' 



Hqra heshem Yehovah, means, invocation 
upon the name of God, and this in a social 
and public manner. (Compare Gen. xii. 8 ; 
4 ;xxii.33 ; xxvi. 25. Ps. cv. 1. Isa. 
xii. 4 ; xli. 25.) It can mean neither less 
nor more here, as I think, than that public 
social worship then commenced, i. e. so soon 
as men began to multiply. The writer does 
not mean to intimate that the pious Seth 
did not pray, before his son was born to 
him ; what can he intimate but social wor- 
ship ? When — is not said." 

(3.) The early division of time into weeks, 
or seven day periods, is a very clear proof 
of the existence of the Sabbath. It is not 
easy to conceive from what other fact or 
circumstance it could have arisen. 

When God threatened the flood, (Gen. vii. 
4,) the language is, " For yet seven days, 
and I will cause it to rain." When Xoah 
had entered the ark, and all was ready, (v. 
10,) " it came to pass, after seven days, that 
the waters," &c. When the flood had abated, 
and Xoah had sent out the dove, and sha 
returned, (viii.lO,) " he staid yet other seven 
days," and sent her out again. And when 
she returned, (v. 12,) " he staid yet other 
seven days," and sent her out again. When 
Jacob negotiated for his wife, the stipula- 
tion of Laban (Gen. xxix. 27) was " Fulfil 
her week" of years ; and (v. 28) Jacob did 
so, and fulfilled her week." When Jacob 
died and Joseph, with his brethren, went up 
to the burial, (Gen. 1. 10,) "he made a 
mourning for his father seven days." When 
Job's friends came to sympathize with hira 
in his afflictions, (Job ii. 13.) " they sat down 
with him upon the ground seven days and 
seven nights." AVhen God sent the plague of 
blood on Egypt, (Ex. vii. 25,) " seven days 
were fulfilled," and then it was removed. 
Can it be doubted, then, that during the pe- 
riod in question, there was the division of 
time into weeks, or periods of seven days? 
But how came this division ? It was not a 
natural one, like that of months or years, 
but purely an artificial or conventional one. 



CHAP. II.] 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



369 



How came it then ? What gave it being ? 
What kept it in existence ? How can it be 
explained, except on the theory of an ex- 
isting and regularly returning Sabbath ? Is 
not this, then, the true theory ? 

(4.) The manner in which the number 
seven was stamped upon almost every im- 
portant transaction, finds no explanation 
except in the existence of the Sabbath 
There is no conceivable virtue of binding 
influence in that, more than in any other 
number, and no fact is known to which it 
can be referred, except the Sabbath, by 
which time was divided into periods of seven 
days, the seventh being sacred by the ap 
pointment of God. Thus, when Noah was 
about to go into the Ark, the direction (Gen 
vii. 2) was, " Of every clean beast," which 
were the beasts for sacrifice, " thou shalt 
take to thee by sevens." The mourning 
for Jacob was a mourning of seven days, 
That of Job's friends with him was seven 
days. The token or seal of Abraham's cov- 
enant with Abimelech was (Gen. xxi. 30) 
" seven ewe lambs." The sacrifice that Job 
offered for his friends when the days of his 
trial were ended, (Job xlii. 8,) was " seven 
bullocks and seven rams." And in latter 
periods especially, almost everything had the 
impress of seven upon it. 

(5.) The manner in which the Sabbath 
is first named by Moses, most clearly im- 
plies its previous existence. It is introduced 
as follows. God had sent them manna 
from heaven, and Moses commanded them 
to gather only what they needed for the day, 
and to leave none for the morrow. Then 
comes the allusion to the Sabbath. 

Exo. xvi. 22, 23 : " And it came to pass, 
that on the sixth day they gathered twice 
as much bread, two omers for one man : and 
all the rulers of the congregation came and 
told Moses. And he said unto them, this 
is that which the Lord hath said, to-morrow 
is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the 
Lord : bake that which you will bake to- 
day, and seethe that ye will seethe ; and 
that which remaineth over lay up for you, 
to be kept until the morning." 
24 



The strong point in this history, is the 
fact that the people understood the Sabbath 
and gathered twice as much manna on the 
previous day. Not a word had been said to 
the people about the Sabbath in connexion 
with the manna, and yet they commenced, 
of their own accord, to prepare for it by 
gathering a double portion of manna. It 
is clear that it was not the result of any 
general order issued by Moses, because the 
rulers of the congregation did not under- 
stand it, which they must have done, had 
there been any such order given. The rulers 
came to Moses, and he answered them by 
making the first allusion to the Sabbath, by 
name. 

Again, the manner in which he refers 
to it implies its existence prior to this 
time. " To-morrow is the rest of the holy 
Sabbath unto the Lord." " The holy Sab- 
bath," clearly refers to a Sabbath known 
and understood. The declaration was not 
made to communicate to them a new truth 
in the existence of the Sabbath, this they 
clearly knew, for all the people knew it ; 
but to give an explanation of the matter of 
gathering twice as much manna as on other 
days. This appears to be the only point 
they did not understand. 

Nor is there any intimation that God had 
made any communication to Moses concern- 
ing the Sabbath before this. When he 
says, " this is the thing which the Lord hath 
said," he does not refer to any command 
appointing the Sabbath, but to the manna ; 
' bake to-day." So when the command to 
keep the Sabbath is given, as a part of the 
Decalogue, the manner of expression im- 
plies its previous existence. 

Exo. XX. 8-11 : " Kemember the Sabbath 
day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou 
labor, and do all thy work : but the seventh 
day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God ; 
in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor 
thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, 
nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor 
thy stranger that is within thy gates. For 
in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, 
the sea, and all that in them is, and rested 



370 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book III. 



the seventh day : wherefore the Lord bles- 
sed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." 

Here the word, " remember, " implies a 
pre-existing knowledge of the thing. But 
the reason assigned is perfectly conclusive. 
God made the world in six days, and rested 
on the seventh, and hallowed it. This had 
been just as good a reason for a Sabbath 
during all past time, as it was then. It 
also clearly speaks of what God did at the 
time of creation. God then blessed and 
hallowed the seventh day ; not does now 
bless and hallow, nor, now blesseth and hal- 
loweth. 

Moses repeats the command in a manner 
which some have supposed makes it depend 
upon their rest from Egyptian servitude, as 
its ground and origin, but it is clearly a mis- 
taken idea. 

Deut. V. 12-15. "Keep the Sabbath- 
day to. sanctify it, as Jehovah thy God hath 
commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labor, 
and do all thy work ; but the seventh day 
is the Sabbath of Jehovah thy God : in it 
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy 
son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, 
nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine 
ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger 
that is within thy gates ; that thy man- 
servant and thy maid-servant may rest as 
well as thou. And remember that thou 
wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that 
Jehovah thy God brought thee out thence, 
through a mighty hand and by a stretched- 
out arm : therefore Jehovah thy God com- 
manded thee to keep the Sabbath-day. " 

This certainly cannot disannul the declar- 
ation proclaimed upon Sinai with the trump 
of God, and written with his own finger 
upon tables of stone, that in six days he 
made the world and rested on the seventh 
and that therefore they should keep the 
seventh day holy. But why is it connected 
with their deliverance from Egyptian servi- 
tude ? and why is that a reason for keeping 
the Sabbath. There are two plain reasons. 

First, the fact that they had been servants 
in Egypt and suffered for want of rest, made 
a strong appeal to them to grant the rest of 



the Sabbath to their servants and even 
their beasts of burden. 

Secondly, the fact that they were denied 
the rest of the Sabbath, and its consequent 
religious advantages in Egypt, by which 
God was provoked to bring them out amid 
his scathing thunders upon their oppressors, 
could not fail to be a powerful reason why 
they should now keep his Sabbaths. This 
exposition, which must be the true one, 
strengthens the opinion that the Sabbath 
existed from the beginning. 

(6.) Some of the best writers upon an- 
tiquity, confirm the doctrine that the Sab- 
bath was instituted at creation. Some of 
these writers flourished more than a thou- 
sand years before the Christian era. The 
following will answer as specimens. 

Homer says, " Afterwards came the sev- 
enth, the sacred day. " 

Hesiod says, " The seventh day is holy. " 

Callimachus speaks of the seventh day 
as holy. 

LucTAN says, " The seventh day is given 
to school-boys as a holiday. " 

PoRPHYEY says, " The Phoenicians conse- 
crated one day in seven as holy. " 

JosEPHUs says, " There is no city, either 
of Greeks or barbarians, or any other na- 
tion, where the religion of the Sabbath is 
not known. " 

Grotius says, " That the memory of the 
creation being performed in seven days, was 
preserved not only among the Greeks and 
Italians, but among the Celts and Indians, 
all of whom divided their time into weeks. " 

EusEBius says, " Almost all the philoso- 
phers and poets acknowledge the seventh 
day as holy. " 

III. The Sabbath is perpetual and uni- 
versally binding. 

This follows from what has already been 
demonstrated, as well as from other reasons. 

1. The Sabbath was instituted for the 
whole human fumily. It has been proved 
that it was instituted at the completion of 
creation, when Adam was the only man, 
and what was instituted for him was for the 
whole race. 



CHAP. 11.] 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



371 



2. The Sabbatli, having been instituted 
at creation, formed no part of that typical 
and ceremonial religion which was after- 
wards given to the Jews. It was only join- 
ed to it, as a part of its moral code, but 
existed before, and remains since that has 
been removed. 

3. It was distinguished from the entire 
ceremonial law, by being made a part of the 
Decalogue, all the other parts of which it is 
admitted remain unrepealed under the Gos- 
pel, and are perpetually binding. It was 
written upon stone with the other nine com- 
mandments, as an emblem of its durability, 

4. It has been proved to be based upon 
a moral obligation, and therefore must be 
perpetually binding. 

5. All the reasons which ever existed for 
a Sabbath, still exist. Was it given to 
commemorate the work of Clod ? there has 
since been added to the work of creation the 
work of redemption. Was it given to pro- 
mote worship ? it is as needful now as it 
ever Avas. Was it provided to meet the 
wants of our moral natures ? it is needed to 
meet those wants as much now as it ever was, 
Was it given to meet the wants of our phys- 
ical natures, as a day of rest ? we need it as 
much now as did those who lived in days of 
yore. 

6. The typical character of the Sabbath 
is proof of its perpetuity. It is a type of 
the rest of heaven, and of course must be 
continued to the end of time. This is clear- 
ly proved by what is said in the fourth 
chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
The points are as follows : 

(1.) The Apostle gives us to understand 
that we have a promise of rest, and exhorts 
us to labor to enter into it. 

Yerse 1 : " Let us therefore fear, least a 
promise being left us of entering into his 
rest, any of you should seem to come short 
of it." 

(2.) The Apostle informs us that this 
promise of rest is as old as creation, and 
that it was signified by the Sabbath which 
was instituted at creation. 

Yerse 3, 4: "For we which have be- 



lieved do enter into rest ; as he said. As I 
have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter 
into my rest : although the works were fin- 
ished from the . foundation of the world. 
For he spake in a certain place of the sev- 
enth day on this wise, And God did rest 
the seventh day from all his works." 

This makes it clear that the rest of which 
the Apostle was speaking, was, in his mind, 
connected with the seventh day rest, and 
that he regarded the Sabbath rest insti- 
tuted at creation, as emblematic of the rest 
of which he spake, and for which he exhort- 
ed the Hebrews to labor. 

(3.) The Apostle shows that the rest in 
question is yet future, that it was not fully 
realized by the Isralites in the rest of the 
land of Canaan, and that it does not have 
its full accomplishment, in the rest of the 
Gospel, which those enter into who believe. 

In verse 3, quoted above, he refers to the 
Gospel rest, " we which have believed do 
enter into rest." This is shown not to be 
the ultimate rest signified. 

He shows in verse 8, that Canaan did 
not meet the promise of rest. " For if 
Jesus had given them rest, then would he 
not afterward have spoken of another day." 

Joshua is the person here called Jesus. 
The names are the same in the original. 
Then comes the conclusion, that the rest is 
yet future, verse 9-11, ''There remaineth 
therefore a rest to the people of God. For 
he that is entered into his rest, he also hath 
ceased from his own works, as God did from 
his. Let us labor therefore to enter into 
that rest, lest any man fall after the same 
example of unbelief." 

The Sabbath is then clearly emblematic 
of the final rest of the saints in heaven ; 
and must remain until that rest is gained. 

7. It has been proved to be our duty to 
maintain public worship, which cannot be 
done, without a Sabbath. 

8. It has heen demonstrated, so far as it 
can be, by the most extensive observation 
and experience, that a seventh day rest is 
demanded by our moral and physical con- 
stitution. 



372 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book hi. 



9. A comparison between those communi- 
ties who religiously regard the Sabbath, 
and those who do not, will show, as far as 
that kind of proof can go, that God, by his 
Providence, sets his seal upon the institu- 
tion. 

These arguments might have been extend- 
ed to greater length, they have been but 
briefly stated. 

lY. The day for celebrating the Sabbath 
has been changed from the seventh, to the 
ISrst day of the week. 

Before entering upon the argument, it is 
proper to remark, that it has already been 
shown that the obligation to devote a por- 
tion of our time to God and religion, is 
based upon moral and unchangeable right, 
while the particular day to be thus devoted, 
is a matter of appointment, and may be 
changed at the will of the Lawgiver. We 
are bound to keep a Sabbath to the Lord, 
because it is right, because moral obligation 
requires it, back of all positive law, but we 
are bound to observe one day as a Sabbath, 
rather than any other day, because God has 
designated that particular day as the one to 
be observed. Thus it is seen that there 
may have been a change of the day, without 
effecting the perpetuity of the institution, or 
our obligation to observe the Sabbath. 

It is a fact that the day has been changed 
in practice. Christians generally observe 
the first day of the week, in commemoration 
of Christ, in the place of the seventh day 
Sabbath, which was instituted to commemo- 
rate the work of creation. It is claimed 
that this change was made by divine au- 
thority. The way is now prepared for the 
argument. 

1. This change was clearly foretold as 
connected with the resurrection of Christ. 

Psa. cxviii. 22-24: "The stone which 
the builders refused is become the head 
stone of the corner. This is the Lord's do- 
ings : it is marvellous in our eyes. This is 
the day which the Lord hath made ; we will 
rejoice and be glad in it." 

If the above text does prophetically refer 
to the Christian Sabbath ; if by " the day 



the Lord hath made," is meant the Chris- 
tian Sabbath, set apart in commemoration 
of the resurrection of our Lord, which oc- 
curred thereon ; and if by rejoicing and be- 
ing glad in it, is meant the joy and gladness 
of Christian worship, the argument must 
prove conclusive in support of the divine 
appointment of the Christian Sabbath. 
Now, how any one can fail to see all this in 
the prophecy under consideration, must be 
very difficult for an unsophisticated mind to 
understand. 

(1.) The text cannot be applied to any 
other event of sufficient importance to en- 
title it to occupy so lofty a note in the song 
of the Prophet. Some remarkable day or 
event must be intended ; something worthy 
to be noted upon the chart of the divine ad- 
ministration ; something worthy to be cele- 
brated in anticipation, by an inspired pro- 
phetic song, breathed through the Seer by 
the Holy Ghost. On geographical maps 
and charts, principal cities, towns, rivers and 
mountains are marked ; and so God has 
distinguished great events upon the prophet- 
ic chart, and upon the record of his admin- 
istration. The creation of the world was 
deemed worthy of a monument which was 
the seventh day rest. The destruction of 
the world by water was a marked event. 
The deliverance of the Children of Israel 
out of Egyptian bondage, and the institution 
of the Mosaic system constitute another im- 
portant era. So was the advent of our Lord 
Jesns Christ an important event in the his- 
tory of the world ; and his death and resur- 
rection, whereby he triumphed over death 
and the grave, and brought the light of im- 
mortality to dawn upon human destiny, 
constitute the great central and radiant 
epoch in the divine administration, and in 
the history of the world. It is not only 
clear that the prediction cannot be applied 
to any other event, but that it is appropri- 
ate, expressive, commeinorative and glori- 
ously radiant when applied to the day of 
the Saviour's triumph over death and the 
grave. " This is the day which the Lord 
hath made ; we will rejoice and be glad in 



CHAP. II.] 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



373 



it." What day is so well calculated to 
awaken joy and gladness as that on which 
the Saviour arose ? 

*• The theme, the joy, how then shall man 

sustain ? 
the burst gates ! crush'd sting ! demolished 

throne ! 
Last gasp of vanquished death — shout earth 

and heaven, 
This sum of good to man ! whose nature 

then 
Took ^\''m^ and mounted with him from the 

tomb. 
Then, then, I rose ; then first humanity 
Triumphant past the crystal ports of light — 
Stupendous guest ! and seized eternal youth." 

Indeed, the resurrection of Christ is more 
worthy of a monument than creation itself 
more worthy to be commemorated on its 
weekly return, with ardent devotion, rejoic- 
ing with hope and glad songs of praise. 
There is no other day on which we have so 
much cause to rejoice as that on which our 
Lord arose, and to this the prophetic song 
must refer, and to it the Christian poet has 
added, 

" On this glad day a brighter scene 
Of glory was display'd. 
By Grod, th' eternal Word, than when, 
This universe was made. 

" He rises, who mankind has bought, 
With grief and pain extreme ; 
'Twas great to speak the world from 
nought ; 
'Twas greater to redeem." 



If, then, the prediction cannot be applied 
to any other event or day with any degree 
of propriety, and if it does apply with clear- 
ness, propriety and force to the resurreo 
tiou of Christ, it prophetically points out 
the Christian Sabbath as a day for cele- 
brating the Kedeemer's triumph over death, 
by the joy and gladness of Christian wor- 
ship. 

(2.) The prophecy clearly, upon its face, 
refers to the death and resurrection of 

Christ, and has been so applied to Jesus 

Christ and his apostles. 



" The stone which the builders refused is 
become the head stone of the corner," is an 
expression which can be applied to nothing 
else but the rejection of Christ and his tri- 
umph. " Jesus said unto them, did ye nev- 
er read in the Scriptures, the stone which 
the builders rejected, the same is become 
the head stone of the corner. This is the 
Lord's doings and it is marvellous in our 
eyes." Matt. xxi. 42. 

" Be it known unto you all, and to all 
the people of Israel, that by the name of 
Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye cruci- 
fied, whom God raised from the dead, even 
by him doth this man stand here before 
you whole. This is the stone which was 
set at nought of you builders, which is be- 
come the head of the corner." Acts iv. 
10, 11. 

" Unto you therefore which believe, lie 
is precious ; but unto them v/hich be diso- 
bedient, the stone which the builders disal- 
lowed, the same is made the head of the 
corner." 1 Peter ii. 7. 

It is perfectly plain from the above 
Scriptures, that the Prophet was speaking 
of the death and resurrection of Jesus 
Christ, when he exclaimed, " This is the 
day which the Lord hath made, we will re- 
oice and be glad in it." The day referred 
to, '•' which the Lord hath made," is clearly 
the day on which the rejected stone became 
the head stone of the corner, and that was 
the day when Christ arose from the dead. 
He was rejected by the Jews and put to 
death ; but he " was declared to be the 
Son of God by the resurrection from the 
dead." Eom. i. 4. Then the rejected stone 
became the head stone of the corner. The 
Prophet clearly had his eye on the triumph 
of the resurrection, and the subsequent joy 
of Christian worship, when he sung, " this 
is the day which the Lord hath made; 
we w^ill rejoice and be glad in it," to vs'hicli 
e'/ery true Christian heart responds, 



" Welcome sweet day of rest. 
That saw the Lord arise, 

Welcome to this reviving breast, 
And these rejoicing eyes." 



374 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book III 



If then it is clear, as has been shown, 
that the observance of the Christian Sab- 
bath was predicted, as connected with and 
following the resurrection of Jesns Christ, 
it follows that the institution is not only a 
commemorative monument of that event, 
but that it constitutes a part of the divine 
economy. 

2. The history of the Christian Sabbath 
clearly proves it to be of Divine appoint- 
ment, binding upon all Christians. 

In discussing this proposition several 
points must be examined. 

(1.) The day on which Christ arose, be- 
gan to be observed immediately by the 
apostles and their associates, and has clearly 
been observed ever since. It gives force to 
this fact that the first meetings were honored 
by the presence of Jesus Christ. The fol- 
lowing is the record of the first meeting : 

" Then the same day at evening, being 
the first day of the week, when the doors 
were shut where the disciples were assem- 
bled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and 
stood in the midst, and saith unto them 
peace be unto you." John xx. 19. 

The following is the record of the second 
meeting : 

" And after eight days again his disci- 
ples were within, and Thomas with them. 
Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and 
stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto 
you." John xx. 26. 

In the expression, "after eight days," 
the day of the first meeting is reckoned as 
as one, which brings the next first day, the 
eighth ; it was therefore on the resurrection 
day that he appeared to them the second 
time, they being assembled in their private 
room. That from these first meetings with 
the Saviour, the practice of observing the 
first day of the week for the celebration of 
Christian worship, followed and increased 
until it entirely superceded the Jewish Sab- 
bath among all Christians, there can be no 
doubt. 

Twenty-five years after the above trans- 
actions, we have the following record : 

" And upon the first day of the week, 



when the disciples came together to break 
bread, Paul preached unto them ready to 
depart on the morrow, and continued his 
speech until midnight." Acts xx. 7. 

This all looks very natural, upon the sup- 
position that the first day of the week was 
the day on which Christian worship was 
regularly celebrated. Observe, first, the 
disciples came together to break bread on 
the first day of the week. This was doubt- 
less the celebration of the Lord's supper, 
and it is clear that this was the day set 
apart for its observance. They came to- 
gether for this very purpose. Observe, sec- 
ondly, that Paul availed himself of this 
meeting to preach his farewell sermon to 
them, " ready to depart on the morrow." 
Thus was he to commence his journey on 
the first day, after the Christian Sabbath, 
allowing this to have been their regular day 
for celebrating Christian worship, as it al- 
ready was. Understanding it thus, the 
whole is a very natural transaction. This 
transaction was at Troas. 

One year later, the apostle wrote the fol- 
lowing to the Corinthian Church : 

" Now concerning the collection for the 
saints, as I have given order to the churches 
of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first 
day of the week let every one of you lay by 
him in store, as God hath prospered him, 
that there be no gatherings when I come." 
1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2. 

From this it is plain that the Christian 
assemblies were convened on the first day 
of the week, and that such observance of 
the day had the apostle's sanction. On 
these last two texts. Dr. Clarke has given 
significant comments. On the former he 
says, that the first day of the week was 
" what was called the Lord's day, the Chris- 
tian Sabbath in which they commemora- 
ted the resurrection of our Lord, and which 
among all Christians afterwards took the 
place of the Jewish Sabbath." On the lat- 
ter txet he remarks, " It appears that the 
first day of the week, which is the Christian 
Sabbath, was the day on which their prin- 
cipal religious meetings were held in Corinth 



CHAP. II.] 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



375 



and the churclies of Galatia ; and, conse- 
quently, in all other places where Christi- 
anity had prevailed. This is a strong argu- 
ment for keeping the Christian Sabbath." 

(2.) It is a significant fact that, as the 
observance of the first day of the week in- 
creased by the increase of Christianity, the 
observance of the Jewish Sabbath declined, 
until it wholly ceased where Christianity 
prevailed. It is no objection that the change 
was not sudden and entire, it could not be 
in the nature of things. All minds are not 
affected alike by the presentation of the 
same truths and evidences. Some are sud- 
denly and entirely convinced, and by a sin- 
gle mental operation grasp the entire con- 
clusion resulting from the premises pre- 
sented: Others go through a slow mental 
process to reach the same results, and em- 
brace the truth, and see and admit conclu- 
sions, item, by item ; hence some embrace 
parts of a theory before they embrace the 
whole. Some would naturally take up the 
Christian Sabbath and at once drop the Jew- 
ish Sabbath on the first presentation of the 
idea, while others would fall in with them 
so far as to observe the Cliristian Sabbath, 
and still continue to observe the Jewish 
Sabbath. The exceeding tenacity of the 
Jews on the subject of the seventh day Sab- 
bath, may have rendered it necessary for the 
first Cliristians among them, to observe it 
as a matter of personal safety, nor can it be 
maintained that they necessarily violated 
any moral principle in so doing. It would 
not even be strange that many Jews, who 
became devoted Christians, should have 
from the power of their education, continue 
to observe the seventh day Sabbath, observ 
ing both days. 

Another consideration is, that up to the 
time of the destruction of the Jewish nation, 
which took place about A. D. 90, the apos- 
tles and all Christian ministers of Jewish 
origin, must have found it advantageous to 
observe the Jewish Sabbath, by attending 
their service, for the purpose of preaching 
the Gospel to them. The only means of 
reaching them with the truth, generally, 



was to attend in the temple and in the Syn- 
agogues, on the seventh day. This accounts 
for the fact that the apostles appear to have 
so frequently attended the Jewish assemblies 
on the Sabbath day. It is also a sufficient 
answer to the objection, that the first Chris- 
tians worshipped more frequently on the 
seventh, than on the first day of the week. 
They doubtless maintained their own pe- 
culiar Christian assemblies on the first day 
of the week, and on the Jewish Sabbath 
mingled in their assemblies with a view to 
their conversion. 

But it is clear, as asserted in the propo- 
sition under consideration, that the first day 
of the week came to be generally observed 
by all Christians, and that the Jewish Sab- 
bath sunk gradually into disuse, as Christi- 
anity prevailed. The following text is suffi- 
cient to prove this point : 

" Let no man therefore judge you in meat, 
or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or 
of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days." 
CoL ii. 16. 

To what Sabbath does the apostle refer ? 
It cannot be the Christian Sabbath, for he 
was speaking of what was enjoined by the 
law, and that never was. Moreover, the 
Christian Sabbath was called the Lord's 
day, and not the Sabbath. 

It must be, then, that the apostle refers 
to the Seventh, day Sabbath, and he gives 
them clearly to understand that they are 
not morally bound to observe it. ISTor can 
it be maintained with any degree of plausi- 
bility, that the apostle speaks of other days 
as feast days called Sabbaths. He uses 
the Greek word, Sabbaton, which is every- 
where used to denote the seventh day Saib- 
bath, without giving any notice that he 
means anything else ; and while, by '• a holy 
day" and the " new moon," he includes all 
other feasts and rests which might be called 
Sabbaths, leaving nothing but the seventh 
day Sabbath to be meant by the Sabbath 



Dr. McKnight has given the following 
comment on the text, " The whole of the law 
of Moses being abrogated by Christ, Col. ii. 



376 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book III. 



14, Christians arfe under no obligations to 
observe any of the Jewish holidays, not even 
the seventh day Sabbath. Wherefore, if 
any teacher made the observance of the 
seventh day a necessary duty, the Collossi 
ans were to resist it. But though the 
brethren, in the first age, paid no regard to 
the Jewish seventh day Sabbath, they set 
apart the first day of the week for public 
worship, and for commemorating the death 
and resurrection of their master, by eating 
the supper on that day ; also for the private 
exercise of devotion. This they did either 
by the precept or the example of the apos- 
tles, and not by virtue of any injunction in 
the law of Moses. " This comment of Dr. 
McKnight, is not to be construed as imply- 
ing the abrogation of any part of the moral 
law ; the obligation of the fourth command- 
ment is continued in our obligation to ob- 
serve the Christian Sabbath, the change of 
the institution from one day to another, in 
no sense involves the abrogation of the es- 
sential law of the institution. From the 
text under consideration two points are 
clear. First, some were disposed to censure 
the brethren for not observing the Sabbath 
days. " Let no man judge in respect to the 
Sabbath days, " implies that they were as- 
sailed on this ground. The second point is, 
that the apostle clearly protects them against 
all such censures. Under such authority 
aud influences the Jewish Sabbath gradu- 
ally sunk into disuse. Thus it has been 
shown that the first day of the week gradu- 
ally came to be observed, and the seventh 
day was gradually neglected, as Christiani- 
ty gained, until the change became com- 
plete. 

(3.) This change took place under the eye 
of the apostles, who were inspired, and must 
have been with their sanction, if not their 
command. Their example doubtless lead 
the way, as it has been seen that they were 
the first to assemble on the first day of the 
week, the day on which the Master rose 
from the dead. This argument, when prop- 
erly presented, must prove conclusive. Ob- 
serve, 



First, The apostles were clothed with 
divine authority to organize and settle the 
Gospel church. 

" Yerily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye 
shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heav- 
en ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, 
shall be loosed in heaven. " Matt, xviii. 
18. 

This is a commission with plenary power 
to organize the Gospel church, and to settle 
its laws and rules of government. To secure 
them from error in this important work, 
they had. 

Secondly, The promise of divine direc- 
tion. 

" But the Comforter, which is the Holy 
Ghost, whom the Father will send in my 
name, he shall teach you all things, and 
bring all things to your remembrance, what- 
soever I have said unto you. " John xiv. 
26. 

Take the above two points together, and 
the argument must be conclusive. They 
were clothed with authority, and therefore 
what they did is binding ; and they were 
divinely guided, and therefore what they did 
was right — was in accordance with the will 
of God. What they bound on earth was to 
be bound (ratified) in heaven ; and they 
bound (established) the first day of the 
week as a day for Christian worship in com- 
memoration of the resurrection of Christ, 
and therefore this must be bound in heaven, 
and is of divine authority. They loosed 
the observance of the seventh day Sabbath 
on earth, as shown above, and therefore it 
is loosed in heaven, and is no more binding. 

(4.) What greatly adds to the force of 
this historical sketch of the Christian Sab- 
bath, is, that no other account can be given 
of it. If the change was not effected at the 
time and under the circumstances above 
supposed, when and under what circum- 
stances was the change made ? The change 
could not have been made at any other time, 
and the fact not be known. Could the day 
be now changed from Sunday to Monday, 
and not awaken a discussion which would 
leave its traces upon the record of the age, 



CHAP. II.] 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



377 



to be seen in future centuries ? Certainly 
not. If tlie Christian Sabbatii had been 
commenced at any other period than, as is 
supposed, immediately after the resurrection 
of Christ, it would be told when and under 
what circumstances the change was made. 
If the change was made, as has been sup- 
posed, under the eye of the apostles, it must 
be authoritative and binding on all Christ- 
ians. 

3. The earliest ecclesiastical authority con- 
firms the whole of the preceding argument. 
Before quoting authorities, it is proper to 
introduce one text from the Scriptures. 
John says, " I was in the spirit on the 
Lord's day, " Eev. i. 10. By the Lord's 
day is meant the day on which Christ rose 
from the dead. This proves that the day 
was distinguished, and it is a significant fact 
that upon this day Jesus Christ opened the 
vision, and commenced the reyclations of 
this remarkable book. The name itself is 
significant. " The Lord's day " corresponds 
with the words of the prophecy upon which 
this whole argument is based. " This is the 
day which the Lord hath made, we will re- 
joice and be glad in it. " Now, what is the 
'• Lord's day, " but " the day which the 
Lord hath made ?" and what is " the day 
which the Lord hath made, " but " the 
Lord's day ?" The prophecy is clearly seen 
to receive its fulfillment, not only in the ob- 
servance of the Christian Sabbath, but also 
in the very name by which the day was so 
early distinguished. This name has been 
introduced at this point, because, if any are 
disposed to question the fact that the first 
day of the week is meant by the Lord's day, 
the authorities about to be quoted will set- 
tle the question beyond a doubt. 

Ignatius was a disciple of St. John, and 
is said to have been constituted the bishop 
of the church at Antioch, by that apostle. 
This is coming as near to apostolic authori- 
ty as we can get outside of the Scriptures 
themselves. In the epistle of Ignatius to 
the Maguesians, section 1, he makes the fol- 
lowing remark in speaking of the Jews and 
of their laws : 



" Wherefore, if they who were brought up 
in these ancient laws, come nevertheless to 
the newness of hope, no longer observing 
Sabbaths, but keeping the Lord's day, in 
which our life is sprung up by him. " 

This clause proves, first, that Christians 
did not at that time observe Sabbaths ; sec- 
ondly, that they did keep " the Lord's day," 
and thirdly, that the Lord's day was the 
day on which he rose from the dead. The 
expression, " in which our life is sprung up 
by him," is a clear allusion to his resurrec- 
tion. 

In the epistle of Barnabas, who is believed 
to have been the companion of St. Paul, 
named in the Acts of the Apostles, makes 
the following remark, section 15. He com- 
mences with a quotation from the prophet, 
" Your new moons and your Sabbaths, I 
cannot bear them. Consider what he means 
by it. The Sabbaths saith he, which ye 
now keep are not acceptable to me, but those 
which I have made ; v\^hen resting from all 
things, I shall begin the eighth day, that is, 
the beginning of the other world. For 
which cause we observe the eighth day with 
gladness, in which Jesus rose from the dead, 
and having manifested himself to his disci- 
ples, he ascended into heaven." 

Whatever else this quotation may con- 
tain, it contains very strong presumptive 
evidence that Christians had ceased to ob- 
serve the Jewish Sabbath, while it positively 
proves that they did observe, with gladness, 
the day on which Christ rose from the dead. 
The prophet said, " this is the day wliicli 
the Lord hath made, we will rejoice and be 
glad in it ;" and Barnabas tells us that they 
observed the day of Christ's resurrection 
" with gladness." Here, then, is a fulfill- 
ment of the prophecy. 

Eusebius was born A. D. 267, and died 
339. He was the author of the oldest ec- 
clesiastical history now extant, and has been, 
consequently, called the father of ecclesias- 
tical history. He wrote from such docu- 
ments and facts as he could possess himself 
of, at a period of about two hundred years 
after the death of the Apostles. A few ex- 



378 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO GOD. 



[book III. 



tracts from his history follow. In speaking 
of the lives of the pious prior to the coven- 
ant with Abraham, he says, '' They did not 
therefore regard circumcision, nor observe 
the Sabbath, neither do we." — [Book 1, 
chap. 4, p. 26. 

The single point in this extract is, the 
early Christians did not observe the Jewish 
Sabbath. 

In speaking of " the heresy of the Ebion- 
ites," an early sect, he says, '' They also ob- 
serve the Sabbath and other discipline of 
the Jews, but on the othe? hand, they also 
celebrate the Lord's day very much like us, 
in commemoration of his resurrection." — 
[Book 3, ch. 27, p. 113. 

This clearly proves that, at that time, or- 
thodox Christians did not observe the Jew- 
ish Sabbath, and that they did observe the 
Lord's day, in commemoration of his res- 
urrection, and that the Lord's day was the 
first day of the week, for it was on this day 
that he rose. 

In speaking of Dionysius, he quotes from 
his epistle to Soter, as follows : 

" To-day, we have passed the Lord's holy 
day, in which we have read your epistle." — 
[Book 4, chap. 24, p. 160. 

This shows that they were in the habit of 
meeting on the Lord's day, and that they 
regarded it as in some sense holier than other 
days. 

Eusebius states, book 4, chap. 26, page 
162, that there was then extant a discourse 
of Melito, " on the Lord's day." 

4. The Sabbatical institution, by being 
changed from the seventh to the first day 
of the week, secures all the advantages de- 
rived from the Jewish Sabbath, while it com- 
memorates a greater event than the creation 
of the world, and tends to elevate and point 
human minds to higher interests than the 
setting up of the mountains or the lighting 
up of the sun. 

As a day of rest, it secures all that could 
be secured by the seventh day Sabbath. 
As a means of religious instruction, it can- 
not be denied that the first day of the week 
can be rendered as efficient as the seventh. 



As a type of that eternal rest that " remain- 
eth to the people of God," it is just as sig- 
nificant as the Jewish Sabbath. But when 
we look at its commemorative character, we 
see a reason for the change as much greater 
than existed for the appointment of the 
Sabbath at the finishing of God's six days' 
work, as redemption is greater and more 
glorious than creation. If creation shone 
resplendent with the glory of God, and the 
young orbs sung of* the power of the hand 
that made them, of redemption it may be 
sung, 

" Here the whole Deity is known, 

Nor dares a creature guess 
Which of the glories brightest shone, 

The justice or the grace." 

Eedemption transcends creation, in pro- 
portion as an eternal weight of woe is a 
greater evil than simple non-existence, and 
as relationship to God, through the incarna- 
tion of divinity, and heirship to Jehovah secu- 
ring eternal life and glory in heaven, involve 
higher interests than Adam's position amid 
Eden's earthly bowers. If, then, creation 
was worthy of such a monument as is seen 
in the hallowing of the seventh day, much 
more is redemption worthy of a like monu- 
ment, and on what day can it be so appro- 
priately set up, as upon the first day of the 
week, upon which the Saviour rose from 
the dead? 

? The seventh day Sabbath celebrated the 
work of creation, and for four thousand 
years did its weekly return talk of the day 
when God ceased from his works, when he 
had made the worlds and lit up the sun and 
the stars. The Christian Sabbath celebrates 
the world's redemption, and comes to us in 
its weekly return to remind us that we are 
lost in sin, and that we have been redeemed ; 
it comes to awaken our songs of gladness, 
and to inspire our devotions. What deep 
and everlasting interests were involved in 
the resurrection of Christ ? What dismay 
did it send through all the ranks of the foes 
of God and man ? and how did the gates 
of hell tremble under its power ? What 



CHAP. Ill-] THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. 



379 



and songs did it inspire in human 
hearts ? How did it dispel the horrors of 
death, and let in the light of immortality 
upon the darkness of the grave, and upon 
the contents of the mouldering urn ? Such 
an event was truly worthy of such a monu- 
ment. 

From all that has been said it must ap- 
pear that the Christian Sabbath is of di- 
vine appointment, a part of the divine econ- 
omy, and of binding obligation. The ob- 
servance of the Christian Sabbath was fore- 
told in a remarkable prediction, as has been 
shown ; it commenced from the very day on 
which Christ rose from the dead, and was 
observed by the early Christians in com- 
memoration of the Saviour's resurrection, 
and has been observed ever since for nearly 
two thousand years, in every land and during 
every century where Christianity has pre- 
vailed. Can any one suppose that mere ac- 
cident or caprice produced this array of com- 
bined facts ? It is impossible. 

To the above, add that a Sabbath is es- 
sential to the carrying out of the Gospel, as 
it stands and is admitted upon the face of 
the record, and the argument for the Sab- 
bath by divine right, will be conclusive. 
Christianity could not be maintained in life 
and activity without a Sabbath, hence, 
many who yield the point of divine author- 
ity, contend for the Sabbath on the ground 
of expediency. How absurd is this ? . It is 
to say that God has left what is essential to 
the success of the Gospel, unsecured by di- 
vine obligation ; that we may omit what is 
essential to the efficient carrying out of the 
Gospel plan, without violating any divine 
law or obligation. It is to say that man, 
seeing a Sabbath to be necessary, sees 
clearer than God did when he planned the 
Gospel, or that God, seeing a Sabbath nec- 
essary, has omitted to insert in the Gospel, 
what he saw essential to its efficiency. It 
cannot be ! It is therefore concluded that 
the view taken' of the subject above is cor- 
rect, and that the Christian Sabbath is a 
part of the divine economy, and of binding 
obligation. 



CHAPTEE III. 

THE DUTIES WE OWE TO CUE FELLOW-BEINGS. 

The duties we owe to our fellow-beings, 
are such as are suited to the relations we 
sustain to each other, as man to man, neigh- 
bor to neighbor, brother to brother, parent 
to child, and child to parent, husband to 
wife, and wife to husband. Bach of these 
relations involve an obligation of duty cor- 
responding to the same. These relations 
are all recognized in the Scriptures, and they 
contain, at least general rules, in regard to 
the duties that pertain to each. To point 
out these duties briefly, in the light of the 
Scriptures shall now be attempted. 



SECTION I. 
The Duty of Universal Love to Humanity, 

As we have seen that Christ summed up 
the whole of the first table of the law, in 
one commandment, so has he done by the 
second table, which concerns the duties we 
owe to our fellow beings. To open the sub- 
ject fairly, let the whole text be again spread 
before the reader. 

Matt. xxii. 37-40 : " Jesus said unto 
him, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with 
all thy mind. This is the first and great 
commandment. And the second is like 
unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as 
thyself. On these two commandments hang 
all the law and the prophets." 

The first of the two commandments has 
already been considered, and the second now 
demands attention. 

I. To whom does this command relate ? 
Who is a neighbor in the sense of this law ? 

In principle it is any member of the hu- 
man family, any son or daughter of Adam 
and Eve. Practically, it is every fellow- 
being, to whom we come into such relation 
as to have it in our power to do them good 
or evil. 



380 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. [BOOK III. 



We are bound to wish no evil to any 
portion of humanity, but are bound to wish 
well to our race, to love man as man, but 
it calls for a practical developement when 
we are brought into such relation to our 
fellow-beings as supposed above. The rea- 
sons for giving it this broad exposition are 
as follows. 

1. Our Saviour's answer to the question, 
" who is my neighbor ?" involves the doc- 
trine that holds us in relation to universal 
humanity, and requires a practical devel- 
opment of love to each and all as we have 
opportunity and as occasion calls. 

Luke X. 30-36 : "■ And Jesus answering 
said, A certain man went down from Jeru- 
salem to Jericho, and fell among thieves 
which stripped him of his raiment, and 
wounded him, and departed, leaving him 
half dead. And by chance there came 
down a certain priest that way : and when 
he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 
And likwise a Levite when he was at the 
place, came and looked on him, and passed 
by on the other side. But a certain Sa- 
maritan, as he journeyed, came where he 
was : and when he saw him, he had com- 
passion on him. And went to him, and 
bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and 
wane, and set him on his own beast, and 
brought him to an inn, and took care of 
him. And on the morrow when he de- 
parted, he took out two pence, and gave 
them to the host, and said unto him, Take 
care of him ; and whatsoever thou spendest 
more, when I come again I will repay thee. 
Which now of these three, thinkest thou, 
was neighbor unto him that fell among the 
thieves ?" 

On this interesting narrative it may be 
remarked, 

(1.) Christ clearly intended it as a de- 
velopment of the principle of the law which 
requires us to love our neighbor as our- 
self. He gave it as a practical exhibition 
of what the law requires. It could not 
have been what the law did not require, 
but what it did require, or it would have 
been no answer. 



(2.) The two men selected for the illus- 
tration, had as little interest in each other, 
and were under as little obligation to each 
other as is possible for any two human 
beings. They were strangers to each other ; 
they were members of different nations, and 
of hostile nations, both having cherished a 
national enmity towards each other many 
centuries. Now, as the law which requires 
us to love our neighbor as ourself, held two 
such men bound to perform mutual acts of 
kindness, it makes a neighbor of any speci- 
men of humanity. 

2. Other Scriptures confirm this view. 
As our Saviour affirms that the whole of 
the second table of the law hangs upon this 
commandment, there can be no obligation 
binding us in regard to men beyond what 
this requires. If there are obligations im- 
posed upon us which this does not require, 
then it does not comprehend the whole law. 
Just at this point, read from Christ's ser- 
mon on the Mount. 

Matt. V. 44-46 : " But I say unto you, 
Love your enemies, bless them that curse 
you, do good to them that hate you, and 
pray for them which despitefully use you 
and persecute you ; That ye may be the 
children of your Father which is in heaven : 
for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil 
and on the good, and sendeth rain on the 
just and on the unjust. For if ye love 
them which love you, what reward have 
ye ? do not even the publicans the same ? 
And if ye salute your brethren only, what 
do you more than others ? do not even the 
publicans so ?" 

If, then, we are to love our enemies, it 
follows that enemies are our neighbors in 
the sense of the all comprehensive law of 
love, since that is the substance of the 
whole law. 

3. There is no higher law, and broader 
in its claims, than the law of love. It 
comprehends more than simple justice, and 
requires of us, in regard to our fellow-be- 
ings, what strict justice does not require. 
If, therefore, this law which requires us to 
love our neighbor as ourself, docs not bind 



CHAP. III.] THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. 



381 



us in regard to all men and every man, as 
we are brought into such relation to them 
as to have it in our power to do them good or 
evil, there is no law that does. The con 
elusion is that this law binds us in regard 
to all men, for to suppose that some men 
may be outlaws in regard to us cannot be 
admitted. 

II, What is the love which we are re 
quired to feel towards our neighbor, that 
is, our fellow-being. 

It is not pretended that we are bound to 
love all men alike, irrespective of their 
character, and without regard to the rela- 
tion that we sustain to them. This can- 
not be, it would be, to be unlike God, and 
unlike Christ. There was one disciple 
whom Jesus loved in contradistinction 
from the rest, though he loved them all. 
How then are we to understand the words 
of Christ ? Christ is his own best inter- 
preter. He says, 

Matt. vii. 12 : " All things whatsoever 
ye would that men should do to you, do ye 
even so to them, for this is the law and the 
prophets." 

This is precisely the sense of the other. 
Of the other, Christ said, on this " hangs 
all the law and the prophets ;" and this he 
says, " is the law and the prophets." The 
meaning is that both contain the substance 
of all that is required by the law and teach- 
ings of the prophets, in regard to our du- 
ties to our fellow-men. If, then, what we 
would that men should do to us in like cir- 
cumstances, is the measure of our duty to 
our neighbor, it cannot require the same in 
regard to all men, and under all circum- 
stances, for that is not what we should re- 
quire our fellow creatures to do to us. 

The love of our neighbor comprehends all 
social affections which have our fellow-men 
for their objects. Conjugal, parental, and 
filial love, and friendship in its several vari- 
eties, are all modifications of the love of 
our neighbor, and are comprehended under 
the general law of loving him as ourselves. 
The same principle is involved in the golden 
rule, which requires us to do to others, in 



all respects, as we would have them do to 
us. 

This law of equal love to men is to be 
interpreted in consistency with all our man- 
ifest personal and domestic duties. Any 
other interpretation of it is wrong. In this 
view the subject is plain. Are you a hus- 
band ? treat your wife as you would like 
to be treated if you were a wife. Are you 
a wife ? treat your husband as you would 
like to be treated, if you were a husband. 
Are you a parent ? treat your child as you 
would like to be treated were you a child. 
Are you a child ? treat your parents as you 
would like to be treated were you a parent. 
Are you a brother or sister ? treat your 
brother or sister as you like to have them 
treat you under like circumstances. Are 
you a ruler ? treat your subjects as you 
would like to be treated were you in their 
place and they in yours. Are you a fellow 
citizen ? treat your fellow citizens as you 
like to have them treat you. Does a stran- 
ger cross your path ? treat him as you 
would like to be treated, were you a 
stranger. Do you find a fellow-being in 
distress ? treat him just as you would like 
to be treated were you in distress. In all 
this, the thing supposed is what you would 
require of your fellow-being in perfect hon- 
esty. 

Dropping the more circumscribed re- 
lations, and looking at man as man, the 
law of love requires of us to love men in 
some respects according to their character 
or moral goodness. "We do not, and can- 
not love all persons alike. 

1. We are required to love all men, with 
the love of good will. We must wish no 
real ill to any man, no, not to the worst 
and the vilest of the race. We wish none 
to ourselves, and if we wish ill to another, 
we do not love him as ourself. We must 
wish good to all. We must have a desire 
for universal happiness, and wish happiness 
to the worst of men. Of course, a wish for 
the happiness of bad men, includes a wish 
that they may become good. It is in this 
sense that we must love all men as our- 



382 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. [BOOK III. 



All men desire happiness them- 
selves, and are bound to desire it for others. 
This necessarily includes all reasonable 
efforts to promote the happiness of our 
fellow creatures, in view of our means and 
opportunities. 

2. We are bound to love all unfortunate 
and distressed human beings with the love 
of pity. There is no duty more fully in- 
sisted upon than this. As a case of the 
most unquestionable authority and of 
thrilling interest, in regard to this duty, we 
may read Christ's description of the scene 
of the last judgment. Christ declares that 
what we do to suffering humanity shall be 
regarded as done to himself. So Paul has 
a most direct command requiring acts of 
charity to our enemies. 

Rom. xii. 20 : " Therefore if thine enemy 
hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, give him 
drink : for in so doing thou shalt heap 
coals of fire on his head." 

If we are required to relieve the distress 
of an enemy, surely we must be under the 
same obligation to all other persons, as 
their necessities may demand, and our 
means may allow. It is clear that we are 
to love all men with the love of pity, so far 
as their circumstances call for it. 

3. We are bound to love good people, 
possessed of right moral character, with the 
love of complacency. This is Christian 
love, and can be felt toward none, save 
such as we regard as Christians. It is not 
transcending the teaching of Christ to say 
that Christians are under obligations to 
each other, which do not bind them in re- 
gard to other men. This obligation is im- 
posed by the " new commandment" which 
Christ gave. Christ said, "A new com- 
mandment give I unto you that ye love 
one another." This would not be new 
if it did not demand more than the univer- 
sal love required by the command, which 
Christ called the second like unto the first. 
" Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," 
was in the Old Testament, but this is dis- 
tinguished from that, and is new. 

(1.) That required the love of benevo- 



lence as has been explained ; this requires 
the love of complacency. 

(2.) That old commandment required 
the love of our kind, the love of man as 
man ; this new commandment requires the 
love of character, of virtue, of Christian 
as Christian. 

(3.) The old commandment was based 
upon the relation man sustains to man ; 
but the new commandment is based on the 
example of the Redeemer, " A new com- 
mandment I give unto you, that ye love 
one another : as L have loved you, that ye 
also love one another." 

The following from the pen of the late 
Richard Watson, is a good general state- 
ment of the law of love. 

" It excludes all anger, beyond that degree 
of resentment a culpable action in another 
may call forth, in order to mark the sense 
we entertain of its evil, and to impress that 
evil upon the offender, so that we may lead 
him to repent of it, and forsake it. This 
seems the proper rule by which to distin- 
guish lawful anger from that which is con- 
trary to charity, and, therefore, malevolent 
and sinful. It excludes implacability ; for 
if we do not promptly and generously forgive 
others their tresspasses, this is deemed to be 
so great a violation of that law of love 
which ought to bind men together, that our 
heavenly Father will not forgive us. It ex- 
cludes all revenge ; so that we are to exact 
no punishment of another for offences 
against ourselves : and though it be lawful 
to call in the penalties of the laws for crimes 
against society, yet this is never to be done on 
the principle of private revenge ; but on the 
public ground, that law and government are 
ordained of God, which produces a case that 
comes under the inspired rule, ' Vengeance 
is mine ; I will repay, saith the Lord.' It 
excludes all prejudice ; by which is meant a 
harsh construction of men's motives and 
characters upon surmise, or partial knowl- 
edge of the facts, accompanied with an in- 
clination to form an ill opinion of them in 
the absence of proper evidence. This ap- 
pears to be what the Apostle Paul means, 



CHAP. III.] THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. 



383 



when lie says, ' Charity thinketh no evil.' 
It excludes all censoriousness or evil speak- 
ing, when the end is not the correction of 
the oflFender, or when a declaration of the 
truth as to one person is not required by 
our love and duty to another ; for whenever 
the end is merely to lower a person in the 
estimation of others, it is resolvable solely 
into a splenetic and immoral feeling. It ex- 
cludes all those aggressions, whether petty 
or more weighty, which may be made upon 
the interests of another, when the law of the 
case, or even the abstract right, might not 
be against our claim. These are always 
complex cases, and can but occasionally oc- 
cur ; but the rule which binds us to do unto 
others as we would they should do unto us, 
binds us to act upon the benevolent view of 
the case, and to forego the rigidness of right. 
Finally, it excludes, as limitations to its ex- 
ercise, all those artificial distinctions whick 
have- been created by men, or by providen- 
tial arrangements, or by accidental circum- 
stances. Men of all nations, of all colors, 
of all conditions, are the objects of the un- 
limited precept, ' Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bor as thyself.' Kind feelings produced by 
natural instincts, by intercourse, by country 
may call the love of our neighbor into 
warmer exercise as to individuals or classes 
of men, or these may be considered as dis 
tinct and special, though similar affections 
superadded to this universal charity ; but aj 
to all men, this charity is an efficient aSec 
tion, excluding all ill will, and all injury. 

" But its ACTIVE EXPRESSION remains to 
be considered. 

" It is not a merely negative affection : 
but it brings forth rich and varied fruit. It 
produces a feeling of delight in the happiness 
of others, and thus destroys envy ; it is the 
source of sympathy and compassion ; it opens 
the hand in liberality for the supply of the 
wants of others ; it gives cheerfulness to 
every service undertaken in the cause of 
others ; it resists the wrong which may be 
inflicted upon them ; and it will run hazards 
of health and life for their sakes. It has 
special respect to the spiritual interests and 



salvation of men ; and thus it instructs, per- 
suades, reproves the ignorant and vicious ; 
counsels the simple ; comforts the doubting 
and perplexed ; and rejoices in those gifts 
and graces of others, by which society 
may be enlightened and purified. The zeal 
of Apostles, the patience of Martyrs, the 
travels and labors of Evangelists in the first 
ages, were all animated by this affection ; 
and the earnestness of Preachers in all ages, 
and the more private labors of Christians 
for the benefit of the souls of men, with the 
operations of those voluntary associations 
which send forth Missionaries to the heath- 
en, or distribute Bibles and Tracts, or con- 
duct schools, are all its visible expressions 
before the world. A principle of philan- 
thropy may be conceived to exist independ- 
ent of the influence of active and efficient 
Christianity ; but it has always expended 
itself either in good wishes, or at most, in 
feeble efforts, chiefly directed to the mitiga- 
tion of a little tempory external evil. Ex- 
cept in connection with religion, and that 
the religion of the heart, wrought and main- 
tained there, by the acknowledged influences 
of the Holy Spirit, the love of mankind 
has never exhibited itself under such views 
and acts as those we have just referred to. 
It has never been found in characters natu- 
rally selfish and obdurate ; has never dis- 
posed men to make great and painful sacri- 
fices for others ; never sympathized with 
spiritual wretchedness ; never been called 
forth into its highest exercises by considera- 
tions drawn from the immortal relations of 
man to eternity ; never originated largo 
plans for the illumination and moral culture 
of society ; never fixed upon the grand ob- 
ject to which it is now bending the hearts, 
the interests, and the hopes of the universal 
Church, the conversion of the world. Phi- 
lanthropy, in systems of mere ethics, like 
their love of G-od, is a greatly inferior princi- 
ple to that which is enjoined by Christianity, 
and infused by its influence ; — another proof 
of the folly of separating moral from reveal- 
ed truth, and of the necessity of cultivating 
them upon evangelical principles." 



384 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. [BOOK III. 



Having- discussed the general principle of 
love to our neighbor as the substance of the 
whole law, we are prepared to look at its 
particular applications as they are called 
for in the various relations of life. It is agreed 
by all, that man's rights and obligations are 
" to be examined and settled in view of the 
various relations in which he is placed to 
his fellow-beings. Now, as this is emphati- 
cally a Biblical investigation, let all philo- 
sophical and schoolastic classifications be 
overlooked, by way of dividing rights into 
natural and acquired, and then discussing 
them under the heads of ethical, economical 
and political justice, and let us inquire after 
his rights and obligations in the light of the 
Scriptures, in connection with his relations, 
as they are revealed in the unfolding volume 
of his progressive experience and history, as 
he started off in the pathway of his exist- 
ence from the hand of his Creator. This will 
be considering them in the order in which 
they rose in the experience of life. This 
suggests the following order : 

Husband and wife, as seen in the first man 
and woman ; then parents and children ; then 
a community or nation ; then nations ; and 
then the world of humanity, many of whom 
sustain no relation to each other, only by 
sustaining a com.raon relation to Adam and 
Eve, and to God the Creator. This divis- 
ion is natural, if not scientific. 



SECTION II. 
Husband and Wife. 

The relation of husband and wife, is the 
first relation which humanity sustained to 
humanity, and is the source and fountain of 
all other relations. This relation we desig- 
nate by the term, marriage. 

I. Marriage was instituted by God him- 
self in the Garden of Eden, for the whole 
race of humanity. 

1. This is clear from the distinction of 
sex which he made in the work of creation. 

Gen. i. 7 : " So God created man in his 



own image ; in the image of God created 
he him ; male and female created he them." 
This division of humanity into male and 
female, lays the foundation of marriage, and 
the relation of husband and wife, and it 
must appear clear to any reasonable mind, 
that the constitution of the sex is a clear in- 
dication of the will of God in regard to the 
institution of marriage. 

2. The Divine declaration in regard to 
the matter, after he had created man, is 
clear and certain. 

Gen. ii. 18 : " And the Lord God said, it 
is not good, that the man should be alone : 
I will make him a help meet for him." 

'•' Meet," that is suitable; proper, and God 
in making such a help for man, made a 
woman, and, of course, it is proper that a 
man and a woman should dwell together, in 
the opinion of the all-wise God. 

3. Adam's account of the matter confirms 
the same view, that marriage was designed 
for the race generally. When God brought 
the woman to Adam, Gen. ii. 22-24, he said, 
" This is now bone of ray bones and flesh of 
my flesh : she shall be called Woman, be- 
cause she was taken out of man. There- 
fore shall a man leave his father and his 
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife : and 
they shall be one flesh." 

In view of the time and circumstances of 
this declaration, it must be regarded as ex- 
pressing the will of God, and as having 
been prophetic. 

4. The manner in which the whole trans- 
action is quoted and commented upon by 
Christ, is clear proof that marriage was de- 
signed by God for the race. 

Matt. xix. 5, 6 : " For this cause shall a 
man leave father and mother, and shall 
cleave to his wife ; and they twain shall 
be one flesh ? Wherefore they are no more 
twain, but one flesh. What therefore God 
hath joined together, let no man put asun- 
der." 

Other proofs might be introduced, but 
they are not necessary. From the fact that 
marriage was designed for the race, it must 
follow that it is the general duty of man- 



CFAP. III.] THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. 



385 



kind to live in the marriage state. The law 
itself is general, leaving room for exceptions, 
but still the rule is that men and women shall 
marry. In regard to the duty of every person 
to marry, Mr. VYatson says, " There was no 
need of the law being directed to each indi- 
vidual as such, since the instincts of nature 
and the affection of love planted in human 
beings were sufficient to guarantee its gen- 
eral observance. The very bond of mar- 
riage too being the preference founded upon 
love, rendered the act one in which choice 
and feeling were to have great influence ; 
nor could a prudent regard to circumstances 
be excluded. Cases were possible in which 
such a preference as is essential to the felici- 
ty and advantages of that state might not 
be excited, nor the due degree of aflfectiou to 
warrant the union called forth. There 
might be cases in which circumstances 
might be inimical to the full discharge of 
some of the duties of that state ; as the 
comfortable maintenance of a wife, and a 
proper provision for children. Some indi- 
viduals would also be called by Providence 
to duties in the church and in the world, 
which might better be peformed in a single 
and unfettered life ; and seasons of persecu- 
tion, as we are taught by St. Paul, have 
rendered it an act of Christian prudence to 
abstain even from this honorable estate. 
The general rule, however, is in favor of 
marriage ; and all exceptions seem to re- 
quire justification on some principle ground- 
ed upon an equal or b, paramount obligation." 

II. Marriage is the union of one man 
with one woman, hence it forbids Polyg- 
amy. 

That marriage, as designed by God, is 
the nnion of one man with one woman, is 
clear from the following considerations. 

1. God ^ade but one man, at the com- 
mencement, and for him he made but one 
woman or wife. 

Adam and Eve were the father and moth- 
er of the race, and, no doubt, were designed 
to represent a model family. If God had 
designed that one man should have two, five 
or ten wives, he would, doubtless, have made 
25 



what would have been a model number for 
Adam. 

2. Adam appears to have taken this view 
of the subject, by his connecting one man 
with one woman only, in his predictions of 
all prospective marriages. 

" Therefore shall a man leave his father 
and his mother, and shall cleave unto his 
wife : and they shall be one flesh." 

Note, man is to cleave to his wife, not his 
wives. Again, they are to be " one flesh." 
The parties to a marriage cannot be one 
flesh, if one man and six women be em- 
braced in the compact. 

3. Christ renders this view still more clear, 
by his manner of quoting and explaining 
the original text. Matt, xix.. He uses the 
same expression, " a man shall leave his 
father and his mother and shall cleave to 
his wife," not his wives. Again, he says, 
" they twain," not they six or ten, " shall 
be one flesh." This is proof positive that 
the marriage union can embrace but two 
persons, one man and one woman. 

Christ was treating of divorce, and added, 
" And I say unto you. Whosoever shall put 
away his wife, except it be for fornication, and 
shall marry another, committeth adultery : 
and whoso marrieth her which is put away 
doth commit adultery." 

Here our Saviour makes the evil lie in 
the second marriage, which could not be, 
if a man may marry more wives than one. 
Putting the wife away might be a wrong 
done to her, but marrying another could be 
no wrong, upon the principle that a man 
may have two living wives. If he would 
have had a right to marry a second wife 
while retaining the first, he must have that 
right after having put her away, and the 
wrong could not lie in the second marriage, 
where Christ placed it. If a man may 
rightfully have a plurality of wives, the fact 
that he may have put away one, cannot ren- 
der it adultery to marry another. Thus 
does the comment of our Saviour prove 
positively, that a man can have but one 
lawful wife at the same time. 

4. Nature itself comes in also as a con- 



386 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. [BOOK III. 



firmation of this original law. In births, 
there is a small surplusage of males over 
females ; which, being reduced by the more 
precarious life of males, and by the acci- 
dents to which, more than females, they are 
exposed, from wars and dangerous employ- 
ments, brings the number of males and fe- 
males to a par, and shows that in the order 
of Providence, a man ought to have but 
one wife ; and that, where Polygamy is not 
allowed, every woman may have a hus- 
band. This equality, too, is found in all 
countries ; although some licentious writers 
have attempted to deny it upon unsound 
evidence. 

Much more proof might be urged, and 
many more texts might be quoted, equally 
clear, but it is not necessary to press the 
point further, to prove that marriage is 
a union between one man and one woman. 

It is admitted that Polygamy existed 
very early in the history of our race, and 
that it was practiced among the Israelites 
to some extent, but the Scriptures nowhere 
sanction it, and it was always wrong. 

III. Marriage is a permanent union, and 
cannot be dissolved but by death. 

The proof upon this point, is so direct 
that but little need be said. It is settled 
by the most undoubted authority of Christ. 

Matt. V. 31, 32 : " It hath been said. 
Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him 
give her a writing of divorcement : But I 
say unto you, That whosoever shall put 
away his wife, saving for the cause of for- 
nication, causeth her to commit adultery ; 
and whosoever shall marry her that is di- 
vorced, committeth adultery." 

This is clear and must settle the question, 
that the Gospel does not allow of divorce, 
only in a single case, which shall soon be 
noticed. This same subject was afterwards 
brought before Christ by the Pharisees, no 
doubt with a view of obtaining some advan- 
tage of him, by the explanation he would 
give. The following is the record of the 
conversation. 

Matt. xix. 3-9 : " The Pharisees also 
came unto him, tempting him, and saying 



unto him. Is it lawful for a man to put away 
his wife for every cause ? And he answered 
and said unto them. Have ye not read, that 
he which made them at the beginning, made 
them male and female ; And said. For this 
cause shall a man leave father and mother, 
and shall cleave to his wife ; and they twain 
shall be one flesh ? Wherefore they are no 
more twain, but one flesh. What therefore 
God hath joined together, let not man put 
asunder. They say unto him, Why did Mo- 
ses then command to give a writing of di- 
vorcement, and to put her away ? He saith 
unto them, Moses, because of the hardness 
of your hearts, suffered you to put away 
your wives : but from the beginning it was 
not so. And I say unto you. Whosoever 
shall put away his wife, except it be for for- 
nication, and shall marry another, commit- 
teth adultery : and whoso marrieth her 
which is put away doth commit adultery." 

In this text Christ clearly teaches that 
the provision in the law of Moses for di- 
vorce, was a departure from the law of mar- 
riage, as it was originally established. 
" From the beginning it was not so," that 
a man might put away his wife. 

The Saviour also teaches that an inno- 
cent party is freed from the marriage obli- 
gation, by the commission of adultery by 
the other party. The word used in the orig- 
inal, and translated, fornication, is a general 
term, denoting any kind of lewdness ; it 
corresponds to our English word, whoredom, 
hence it includes both adultery and fornica- 
tion, in our restricted sense of those words. 
In the text it clearly means adultery. For 
this, and this alone, therefore, may a man 
put away his wife, or a woman leave her 
husband. Christ takes upon himself to an- 
nul the provision of the law of Moses for 
divorce, and to restore marriage to its orig- 
inal character, by making it a permanent 
and binding union, between one man and 
one woman. 

The right of divorce in case either party 
is guilty of adultery, is undoubted, yet this 
needs to be guarded against abuse. It 
would not do to allow the husband or wife 



CHAP. III.] THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. 



387 



to repudiate the marriage contract, and 
marry again, upon their assumption that 
adultery had been committed, as it might lead 
to great»abuse and wrong. The facts should 
therefore be proved and decided upon by 
some competent court, before the parties 
should be allowed to marry a second time. 
The Gospel appoints no such court, but has 
wisely left it to the civil authorities to reg- 
ulate. The right of second marriages, after 
the death of one party, is clearly taught in 
the Scriptures. It is so universally admit- 
ted, that it is only necessary to refer to a 
single text. 

Eom. vii. 2, 3 : " For the woman which 
Hath a husband is bound by the law to her 
iiusband, so long as he liveth ; but if the 
nusband be dead, she is loosed from the law 
of the husband. So then, if, while her hus- 
band liveth, she be married to another man, 
she shall be called an adulteress : but if her 
husband be dead, she is free from that law ; 
so that she is no adulteress, though she be 
married to another man." 

This text so clearly teaches the right of 
second marriages, as to need no comment. 

lY. The object of marriage is worthy of 
consideration. 

1. One intention of marriage in its origi- 
nal institution was, the production of the 
greatest number of healthy children ; and 
that it secures this object, is proved from 
the universal fact, that population increases 
more, and is of better quality where mar- 
riage is established and its sacred laws are 
observed, than where the intercourse of the 
sexes is promiscuous. 

2. Marriage was also, no doubt, designed 
to promote chastity. There can be no doubt 
that it has this effect. Man was not crea- 
ted for sensualism. His constitution is not 
adapted to it. He cannot endure it without 
injury. Marriage was not appointed for 
the gratification of sensuality. All its main 
ends are moral, intellectual, and economical 
Its gratifications of sense are entirely sub 
ordinate to those of higher dignity and 
greater value. 

Marriage promotes chastity. 



(1.) By providing for the lawful indul- 
gence of the sexual appetite. 

(2.) By promoting that mutual afi*ection, 
upon which marriage should depend, and 
which, when it exists in its proper degree, 
leads the parties to prefer each other to all 
others. Under any other arrangement this 
affection cannot have the same growing and 
permanent existence, and intercourse be- 
comes a matter of mere animal instinct. In 
the marriage state, the intercourse of the 
sexes is laid under its natural restrictions, 
and allowed its appropriate liberties. The 
promiscuous intercourse of the sexes is so 
brutal, and contrary to the true interests of 
mankind, that it cannot generally prevail, 
even in the rudest and most savage states of 
society. Nature and experience concur with 
the Scriptures, in demanding the marriage 
state as the proper and only proper condi- 
tion for this intercourse. 

(3.) Marriage promotes chastity, by pre- 
senting a system of intercourse, under the 
controlling influence of mutual affections 
and interests, and under the sanction of 
right, in opposition to an intercourse out- 
side of these advantages, and under the ban 
of the moral law, which declares that all 
fornicators, adulterers and whoremongers, 
have no inheritance in the kingdom of God. 
It stands opposed to Polygamy and promis- 
cuous intercourse, and lays the thoughts of 
the heart under its law of purity. The up- 
right man never loves the wife of his friend, 
or women known to be engaged, any more 
than he entertains similar affections for his 
mother or sister. 

3. Marriage is designed to secure, through 
the establishment of the family relation, the 
highest interests of onr offspring, domestic 
peace, industry, economy, and the general 
happiness of the community. 

Permanent unions of the sexes are neces- 
sary, to give proper support and extend 
proper sympathy to mothers in the care of 
the young. The infant is committed by 
Providence directly to the mother, but the 
father is the natural and divinely-appointed 
protector of both. The infant is his as 



188 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. [bOOK III 



much as it is tlie mother's 
it existence, he has no right to desert it, or 
to devolve the responsibility and burden of 
its snpport and care on the mother. He is 
bound in justice to stand by it and its fe- 
male parent to the last. This can be effec- 
tually done in married life ; but in no other 
way. 

Mr, Watson has well said of marriage, 
" It is indeed scarcely possible even to sketch 
the numerous and important effects of this 
sacred institution, which at once displays, 
in the most affecting manner, the Divine 
benevolence and the Divine wisdom. It se- 
cures the preservation and tender nature of 
children, by concentrating an affection upon 
them, which is dissipated and lost wherever 
fornication prevails. It creates conjugal 
tenderness, filial piety, the attachment of 
brothers and sisters, and of collateral rela- 
tions. It softens the feelings, and increases 
the benevolence of society at large, by bring- 
ing all these affections to operate powerfully 
within each of those domestic and family 
circles of which society is composed. It 
excites industry and economy ; and secures 
the communication of moral knowledge, 
and the inculcation of civility, and early 
habits of submission to authority by which 
men are fitted to become the subjects of a 
public government, and without which, per 
haps, no government could be sustained but 
by brute force, or it may be, not sustained 
at all. These are some of the innumerable 
benefits, by which marriage promotes hu' 
man happiness, and the peace and strength 
of the community at large." 

Y. The mutual obligations which the mar 
riage relation imposes upon the parties, in 
regard to each other, is the last point to be 
considered. 

1. The main duty of married life is love. 
This is so obvious and important, that it is 
generally reckoned essential to the formation 
of the marriage contract, that the parties 
should entertain for each other, a superior 
affection to that which they cherish for any 
other persons, or any other earthly objects. 
This love, where it is properly cultivated 



will render all particular duties pleasure, 
and all mutual burdens light. Married com- 
panions are partners in domestic life, for the 
joint prosecution of all the great ends of 
life. The terms of their partnership are all 
founded in equal love. Each is under the 
most sacred obligation to cultivate and pre- 
serve inviolate towards each other, that ex- 
clusive affection which is implied in conjugal 
fidelity and chastity. 

2. The marriage relation imposes an ob- 
ligation upon the parties, to do all in their 
power, in the use of means consistent with 
their duty to God, to promote each other's 
happiness. The party which does what he 
or she knows will cause the other pain or 
unhappiness, which is not demanded by his 
or her duty, or greater rightful enjoyment, 
violates the obligation of the marriage rela- 
tion. This is very general, but good sense 
and an honest desire to do right, will seldom 
find it difficult to apply it to all particular 
cases. 

This general rule imposes upon the par- 
ties, mutual assistance in the performance 
of the duties of each, mutual industry and 
economy, mutual fortitude and cheerfulness 
under all the burdens and misfortunes of 
life, and mutual forbearance in view of each 
other's weaknesses and errors. To attempt 
to give more specific rules on the points 
here involved, would be not only useless, but 
destroy the force of the whole, at least in 
many cases. 

3. The rights and obligations of the mar- 
ried relation, constitute the husband the 
head of the family, and hold him responsi- 
ble for its protection, government and sup- 
port. In doing so, it regards the wife as 
the second in authority, and as a helper in 
all things, as her abilities may qualify her 
to do, and as the circumstances of their 
condition may call for her exertions. This 
is, beyond all question, the doctrine of the 
Bible in regard to the subject. In support 
of this view it may be remarked, 

(1.) That it is in harmony with the order 
God pursued in the work of Creation. The 
man was first created, and then the woman 



CHAP. III.] THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. 



389 



was formed as a helpmeet for liim. The 
man was not formed as a help for the woman, 
but woman was formed as a help for the 
man. The man therefore is the principal, 
and the woman is the helper, when their 
interests are blended in the marriage rela- 
tion. 

(2.) This doctrine in question is most clear- 
ly and positively asserted in the Scrip- 
tures. 

Eph. V. 22-33 : " Wives, submit your- 
selves unto your own husbands, as unto the 
Lord. For the husband is the head of the 
v\-ife, even as Christ is the head of the church: 
and he is the Saviour of the body. Therefore, 
as the cliurch is subject unto Christ, so let 
the wives be to their own husbands in every 
thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as 
Christ also loved the church, and gave him- 
self for it ; That he might sanctify and 
cleanse it with the washing of water by the 
word : That he might present it to himself 
a glorious church, not having spot, or wrin- 
kle, or any such thing ; but that it should 
be holy and without blemish. So ought 
men to love their wives as their own bodies: 
he that loveth his wife loveth himself. For 
no man ever yet hated his own flesh ; but 
nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the 
Lord the church : For we are members of 
his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For 
this cause shall a man leave his father and 
mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, 
and they two shall be one flesh. This is a 
great mystery : but I speak concerning 
Christ and the church. Nevertheless, let 
erery one of you in particular so love his 
wife even as himself; and the wife see that 
she reverence her husband." 

1 Peter iii. 1-7 : " Likewise, ye wives, 
be in subjection to your own husbands ; that 
if any obey not the word, they also may 
without the word be won by the conversa- 
sation of the wives ; While they behold 
your chaste conversation coupled with fear 
Whose adorning, let it not be that outward 
adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wear 
ing of gold, or of putting on of apparel 
But let it be the hidden man of the heart, 



in that which is not corruptible, even the 
ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which 
is in the sight of God of great price. For 
after this manner, in the old time, the holy 
women also, who trusted in God, adorned 
themselves, being in subjection unto their 
own husbands: Even as Sarah obeyed Abra- 
ham, calling him lord : whose daughters 
ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not 
afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye 
husbands, dwell with them according to 
knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as 
unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs 
together of the grace of life ; that your 
prayers be not hindered." 

Paul gave to Titus direction, Tit. ii. 3-5, 
to instruct, " The aged women likewise, 
that they be in behavior as becometh holi- 
ness, not false accusers, not given to much 
wine, teachers of good things ; That they 
may teach the young women to be sober, to 
love their husbands, to love their children, 
To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, 
good, obedient to their own husbands, that 
the word of God be not blasphemed." 

Col. iii. 18, 19 : Wives, submit yourselves 
unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the 
Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be 
not bitter against them." 

The above Scriptures clearly teach the 
doctrine in question, that the husband is the 
head of the family, and first in authority. 
Other remarks, upon them are reserved un- 
til the conclusion of the argument. 

3, The voice of nature is as distinct and 
decisive as the voice of revelation. 

Nature has given to woman the domestic 
empire as the principal sphere of her duties 
and honors. It is not that there is any law 
against her performing any duty or good 
work which the interests of humanity de- 
mand, and to which a benevolent heart may 
prompt, so far as may be consistent with 
the duties demanded to make her own home 
happy, of which she is mistress, and of which 
she should be the central object of attrac- 
tion. These remarks relate to the marriage 
relation and not to woman in single life, and 
nature has directed by a changeless law, 



390 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. [BOOK III. 



that the duties of wives shall ever be insep- 
arable from the duties of mothers. This 
points to the domestic circle as the principal 
field of woman's labor and woman's glory. 
The husband is better fitted for the more 
public and harder persuits of life. Aside 
from all influence arising from habits, man 
is stronger made physically, and better qual- 
ified to be the leader, supporter and defender. 
The woman is the weaker vessel, and nature 
has made the husband the natural protector 
of the wife. The husband is held responsi- 
ble by the laws of God and man to provide 
for his wife and children. It is written that 
" if any provide not for his own, and espec- 
ially for those of his own house, he hath 
denied the faith, and is worse than an in- 
fidel. " 

2. Tim. ii. 6. When Paul says, " The 
husbandman that laboreth must be first 
partaker of the fruits. " He takes it for 
granted that the labors of the field will be 
principally performed by the harder sex. 
Man is better qualified for it, while the wo- 
man is better qualified for the duties requir- 
ed in the domestic circle, and nature by 
assigning to her the office and duties of a 
mother, has fixed the field of her principal 
responsibilities. 

Some may talk of man's superiority by 
nature, but that is only a dream of the im- 
agination. The doctrine here advocated, is 
not based upon man's supposed superiority, 
but upon nature's law of adaptation. Man 
is doubtless superior to woman in some re- 
spects ; as a general rule, he can stand under 
a greater weight, run with greater speed, 
and clamber over rocks and mountains with 
greater ease, but in point of all that can 
delight the eye of God and holy angels, he 
is not woman's superior. But he is better 
adapted to the sphere our doctrine assigns 
him, and she is better adapted to the sphere 
assigned her by the same doctrine. The 
natural qualities of women, aided by their 
position in society, tend powerfully to de- 
velop correct moral and religious principles ; 
and immorality is less frequent, and piety 



The position of woinan as the subject oi 
the conjugal and maternal relations, gives 
her the almost entire control of the young, 
and makes her to a great extent the arbiter 
of their destinies. To her keeping and care 
each successive generation is intrusted in 
the earliest periods of its existence. From 
her the first impressions on the susceptible 
mind of infancy are received. The infant 
character is moulded and modified in many 
respects by her hand. Her gentleness, her 
affection, her patience, her unwearied in- 
dustry, her incessant care, her principles, 
whether exalted or grovelling, are the school 
of childhood. In this maternal school we 
take our lessons ; under this discipline we 
form our characters for time and eternity. 
The maternal office is, therefore, an office of 
the greatest dignity and usefulness, and 
challenges our highest admiration and es- 
teem. 

Before closing on this subject, it may be 
well to ofier a few remaks by way of guard- 
ing the doctrine that has been advocated 
above, against abuse. On this subject let 
it be remarked, that, 

(1.) There is nothing in the doctrine of 
the wife's subordination, as taught in the 
Gospel, that justifies the thought of servile 
subjection or degradation. That is inconsis- 
tent with the ardent love which is so strong- 
ly urged upon the husband as his christian 
duty. The husband is required to love his 
wife as his own body, and also to give 
" honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker 
vessel. " The Scriptures which have been 
quoted are not to be understood as enjoin- 
ing servile submission, but that yielding to 
the husband's authority which is necessary 
to preserve peace and secure good order in 
the domestic circle. The husband is bound 
by the law of love to consult his wife in 
regard to everything which concerns her 
peace and happiness, and to yield to her 
wishes so far as he can, in view of his best 
sense of right and duty, but where there is 
a diJBFerence of opinion, which cannot be re- 
moved by a comparison of views, the wife is 
bound to yield to the authority of the bus- 



CHAP. HI.] THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. 



391 



band. Slie must, or lie must yield to lier, 
or there must be a want of union in feeling 
and action. It is not degrading for the 
wife to be in subordination in this sense. 

(2.) A good and intelligent wife, will not 
feel it degrading to be subordinate to her 
husband, but if she loves him, and respects 
him as she ought, she will feel it a greater 
honor to look to him as the head and guide 
of the family, than she would to hold the 
principal authority in her own hands. The 
clear headed and right minded will see that 
there is a natural reason for their subordi- 
nation, which does not imply inferiority. 
One must be subordinate, the other superior. 
The superior station naturally belongs to 
the husband, and the inferior to the wife, 
No woman ought to marry a man who is 
not supposed to be equal to the station 
which naturally belongs to him as superior 
partner in the joint family establishment. 
If she is disappointed, and finds him to be 
incompetent, she must still give him his 
place, and assist and sustain him by her 
counsel and co-operation to the best of her 
ability. 

Nor is there anything in the doctrine 
which can throw the slightest difficulty in 
the way of the wife, if the husband be ab- 
sent or incapacitated by any means. She 
is second in command, and in such case, she 
is bound to take his place and represent and 
execute his authority to the best of her abil- 

ity. 

(3.) Least of all is there anything in the 
doctrine of the wife's subordination, Avhich 
can justify conjugal oppression. None but 
an ignorant and mean spirit will make an 
unneccessary use of a husband's superior 
authority. Good wives are often oppressed, 
but it is wicked and destructive to the hap- 
piness of the domestic circle. A wife has 
rights which belong to her, reserved rights 
which remain untouched by the marriage 
relation. A^o^g these are the right of 
conscience, right to enjoy the advantages of 
religion, and to lead a religious life. One 
of the texts quoted above says, " wives sub- 
mit yourselves unto your husbands, as it is 



fit in the Lord. " Beyond this no wife is 
bound to go, and no husband has a right to 
require it. 

SECTION III. 

Parents and Children. 

The parental and filial relations consti- 
tute the second stage in the progress of hu- 
man society. By this relation duties are 
first devolved upon the parents, before 
children become subjects of moral obliga- 
tion. But as children increase in years and 
understanding, they become involved in the 
obligation of duties to their parents. And 
as parents reach advanced years, and child- 
ren come to years of maturity, the active 
duties of the former relax and the duties of 
the latter increase. 

I. What are the duties of parents ? On- 
ly general answers of course can be given to 
this question. 

1. Parents are under obligation to nur- 
ture, protect and rear the children they are 
instrimiental in bringing into existence. 

Children are committed to the care ot 
their parents in a state of helpless depen- 
dence, from whom they must receive every 
care, and be nurtured by the most tender 
hand, to keep alive the feeble vital spark 
with which their existence is first kindled, 
until the fires of life shall burn stronger. 
Each of the parents has an appropriate 
work to perform, but the mother's gentle 
hand and heart of love are put in imme- 
diate requisition, and have most important 
purposes to answer. An immortal being is 
in her arms and on her bosom ; a soul with 
boundless faculties of thought and feeling 
hangs upon her lips of tenderness, anddrinlis 
intelligence from her kindling eye. Facul- 
ties capable of angelic intelligence, and 
heavenly virtue are slumbering in her arms 
and reposing on her breast. She must first 
call them into exercise, and give them im- 
pulses which they will never cease to feel. 
By the kindness of her heart, by the delica- 
cy of her feelings and sentiments, and by her 
nice discrimination and accurate judgement, 



392 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. [BOOK III. 



she is well fitted for her task. She plies her 
labors with unwearied assiduity. As months 
roll away, her immortal charge improves 
under her care, till the laughing lips and 
kindling eye respond to her own deep sym- 
pathies, and love and happiness fill the soul 
and expand its powers. 

This tender and watchful care has to be 
continued for years, but it is soon merged in 
other and sterner duties, as the infant be- 
comes a prattling child, and as a child be- 
comes a youth. This prepares the way for 
a second branch of duty. 

2. It is the duty of parents to govern 
their children. This is a work of great im- 
portance, and often of great difficulty. It 
is a work in which botli parents must take 
a part, and co-operate to sustain each oth- 
er's influence and authority. After the mo- 
ther's tuition has been in progress for some 
time, the child comes under the sterner au- 
thority and the severer influence of the fa- 
ther. The mother's tenderness and exqui- 
site sensibility are necessary in the earlier 
stages of its improvement ; but, at a later pe- 
riod, the more vigorous modes of paternal 
discipline are equally requisite to a proper 
formation of character. The mother ope- 
rates earliest, and continues her kind and 
sympathizing attentions to the last. The 
father commences his appropriate influences 
after a certain degree of progress has been 
attained, and contributes to give manliness 
and energy to the character. 

Children should very early be taught the 
duty of submission to wholesome authority. 
Authority must be enforced, or the ends of 
family government will be defeated, and ruin 
will in most cases be the result. To govern 
children well, the parent must understand 
that the child is to be governed for its good, 
Even parental authority is not to be main- 
tained as an end, but as a means to an end, 
and that end is the benefit of the governed. 
Example goes farther than precept, hence, 
parents should set good examples before 
their children, and be careful of their words 
and of the temper and spirit with which 
they attempt to enforce their commands. 



Government should be firm, but mild, kind 
and liberal. This is implied in the worda 
of Paul, Eph. vi. 4 : " And ye fathers, 
provoke not your children to wrath." This 
undoubtedly forbids parents to be too ex- 
acting and too harsh and severe. So we 
read Col. iii. 21 : " Father's, provoke not 
your children to anger, lest they be discour- 
aged." Too great severity, and especially 
a fault-finding disposition, would have a ten- 
dency to produce the efifect described. When 
children feel that they have made a fair at- 
tempt to do well, and please their parents, 
and are then treated severely and found fault 
with, they will be provoked to wrath, or 
discouraged, or both. 

A wise administration of family govern- 
ment requires as its fundamental condition 
a complete and just system of family laws. 
Whatever rules of action are necessary, 
ought to be adopted and no others. It is 
equally a fault not to adopt necessary rules, 
and to adopt unnecessary ones. A careful 
distinction ought to be made between tl 
appropriate sphere of family government 
and that of advice. Many actions may be 
appropriate matters of advice, which is not 
expedient to enforce. Actions necessary to 
be enforced, we should enforce ; those proper 
to be matters of advice, we should make 
matters of advice only. 

3. Parents are under obligation to educate 
their children to the best of their means and 
opportunity. The first, and most important 
of all, is a religious education. This is ex- 
pressly commanded. Paul commands pa- 
rents to bring up their children " in the 
nurture and admonition of the Lord." Eph. 
vi. 4. 

This clearly comprehends a religious 
education. To bring up children in the 
nurture and admonition of the Lord, is to 
give them a religious education. It is to 
teach them the doctrines and duties of 
Christianity. Parents commit a great error 
when they propose to allow their children to 
grow up without any bias in favor of any 
particular religior, that they may the more 
freely choose for themselves when they come 



CHAP. III.] THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. 



393 



to years of understanding. The absurdity 
of such a course is plain. 

(1.) Parents have no right to leave their 
children to grow up to choose their religious 
views and habits, without doing all in their 
power to impress right views and habits 
upon them. '*' Thou shalt teach them dili- 
gently to tliy children," was the command 
of God to the Israehtes. 

Prov. xxii. 6 : " Train up a child in the 
way he should go ; and when he is old, he 
will not depart from it." 

A child should go in the way of the be- 
lief and practice of religion, and as he is to 
be trained up in the way he should go, the 
duty of parents is to train up their children 
in the belief and practice of religion as 
they understand it. 

(2.) Parents do educate their children, to 
a great extent, whether they aim it or not. 
Education begins very early ; it is always 
commenced in the nursery. Education com- 
mences as soon as the infant becomes sensi- 
ble of surrounding objects, and continues 
through every period of childhood and youth, 
till the character is fully formed and estab- 
lished. 

Parents educate their children by their 
conversation with them and with others 
in their presence, by the provisions which 
they make for their comfort, by their exam- 
ples, temper, dispositions, and conduct. They 
are teachers by necessity, and their children 
are pupils who must receive their lessons. 
The principles and prejudices, virtues and 
vices, and intellectual peculiarities of pa- 
rents, are generally transmitted by domestic 
education to their children. Suppose then, 
that parents adopt the plan of teaching 
their children no particular religion ; that 
of itself will educate the children in the be- 
lief that religion is of less importance than 
the common matters of the world, in regard 
to which parents labor to impart their own 
views and habits to their children. The re- 
sult will probably be, that by the time the 
children are old enough to think for them- 
selves, as it is called, they will be so thor- 
oughly educated in the system of indifference 



to religion, that they are likely to live and 
die in a state of indifference. 

Parents, in order to give their children a 
religious education, should teach them at 
home, live religion before them, and lead 
them to the sanctuary and bring them up 
under the influence of a sound Gospel minis- 
try. Parents are also under obligation to 
give their children such a literary and sci- 
entific education as their circumstances will 
allow, as will qualify them to be respecta- 
ble and useful in the community in which 
they are expected to live, and act. 

4. Parents are bound to do what they 
can to procure for their children a respecta- 
ble, useful and happy settlement in life. 
This is so universally desired on the part of 
parents, that an elaboration of the obliga- 
tion is uncalled for. The measures- parents 
often employ, however, are very erroneous, 
and illy adapted to secure the end. Yet a 
detailed directory on the subject, would be 
out of place here. 

In conclusion, if parents would succeed, 
they must keep before their mind the fact 
of their own accountability to God, on one 
hand, and the immortality of their children 
on the other, and ever act in view of these 
two fundamental truths. 

II. The duty of children to parents. 
The duties of children are so numerous, 
and the forms of the same so varied, that 
but a mere sketch can be given. A few 
general principles may be laid down with 
great certainty. 

1. It is the duty of children to love their 
parents. 

The claim of parents to the love of theif 
children as men and women, is based on the 
same principle as that of other men and 
women. Their claim to peculiar and dis- 
tinguishing affections depends on their pecu- 
liar relations and offices. They are to be 
loved as men and women in proportion to 
their virtues and accomplishments. Every 
additional virtue is an additional charm ; 
every accomplishment an appeal to the 
heart, and a demand of its affection and in- 
terest. They are to be loved as parents ou 



394 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. [BOOK III. 



account of their parental offices and servi- 
ces. To tbem we are indebted, under God, 
for our existence. They have kindly re- 
ceived us from the hand of the Creator ; 
watched over our infancy with unsleeping 
care, and untiring assiduity ; have grieved 
at our griefs, and rejoiced at our joys, more 
than at their own personal inconveniences 
and gratifications ; and have loved and 
served us as themselves. Their main anx- 
ieties have been for us ; and their great- 
est earthly enjoyments have been to contri- 
bute to our happiness. This is not a rare 
case. It is the parental character in its 
usual development. Anything less than 
this is singular and unnatural. All this 
devotion and these services create a demand 
for filial love. They are so many appeals to 
the hearts of children in favor of their pa- 
rents ; and not to respond to them with 
prompt and generous affections, is both un- 
just and cruel. The peculiarity of the pa- 
rental offices requires corresponding pecu- 
liarities in the affection due. They are not 
only to be loved, but to be loved as parents, 
with a due sense of their parental offices 
and services. 

2. Children are bound to reverence their 
parents. The reverence due to parents, 
says Mr. Watson, " consists in that honor- 
able esteem of parents which children ought 
to cherish in their hearts, and from which 
springs, on the one hand the desire to please, 
and on the other the fear to offend. The 
fear of a child is, however, opposed to the 
fear of a slave; the latter has respect 
chiefly to the punishment which may be in- 
flicted ; but the other being mixed with 
love, and the desire to be loved, has respect 
to the offence which may be taken by a 
parent, his grief and his displeasure. Hence 
the fear of Cod, as a grace of the Spirit in 
the regenerate, is compared to the fear of 
children. This reverential regard due to pa- 
rents has its external expression in all honor 
and civility, whether in words or actions. 
The behavior is to be submissive, the speech 
respectful, reproof is to be borne by them 
with meekness, and the impatience of pa- 



rents sustained in silence. Children are 
bound to close their eyes as much as possi- 
ble upon the failings and infirmities of the 
authors of their being, and always to speak 
of them honorably among themselves, and 
in the presence of others. ' The hearts of 
all men go along with Noah in laying pun- 
ishment upon Ham for his unnatural and pro- 
fane derision, and love the memory of those 
sons that would not allow themselves to be the 
witnesses of the miscarriages of their father.' " 

It appears necessary only to add to the 
above, a few confirmatory declarations from 
the word of God. 

Exod. XX. 12 : " Honor thy father and 
thy mother; that thy days may be long 
upon the land which the Lord thy God giv- 
eth thee." 

Deut. xxvii. 16 : " Cursed be he that set- 
teth light by his father or his mother. And 
all the people shall say, Amen." 

Prov. XV. 5 : " A fool despiseth his fa- 
ther's instruction : but he that regardeth 
reproof is prudent." 

3. Children are under obligation to obey 
their parents. In childhood, the obligation 
is absolute, as the parents are the only com- 
petent judges in the case, what is proper 
and what is not, unless so far as the civil 
law may come in to protect children from 
the abuse of inhuman parents. God has 
made parents the judge of the conduct of 
their children, and holds them to a strict ac- 
count for the manner in which they dis- 
charge the functions of their bfiice, and for 
the conduct of their children, while under 
their control. When children get old enough 
to understand their relation to God, as well 
as to their parents, and to be the subjects of 
moral obligation and of an enlightened con- 
science, the case is a little different. Still 
while they remain under the control and ju- 
risdiction of the family government, child- 
ren are bound to obey their parents in every- 
thing, except so far, as they may be required 
to do or not do, what, in their honest con- 
viction, would be a sin against God. This 
no obligation can require and no law justify, 
under any circumstances whatsoever. 



CHAP. III.] THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. 



395 



The parental office is necessarily one of 
authority. Parents are charged with re- 
sponsibilities which cannot be met without 
the exercise of authority. They must con- 
trol their children in order to take care of 
them, as well as from a due regard to their 
own comfort. Families are provinces in 
God's kingdom, and* family government a 
branch of the Divine government. Pa- 
rents are God's officers to administer the 
government of their respective families ac- 
cording to his laws, and in subordination 
to the great ends of his more general gov- 
ernment. As such they have their legiti- 
mate sphere, within which their law is 
God's law ; and their will, God's will. To 
obey them, therefore, in the exercise of their 
legitimate authority, is to obey God ; and 
to disobey them, to disobey him. 

Parents must be obeyed. They occupy 
a position in which they must rule, and their 
children must, to a great extent, submit. 
They are responsible for exercising their 
authority with justice, and children are re- 
sponsible for obedience. 

Like other rulers, parents may abuse their 
power. When they command things which 
are lawful and right, resistance is sin. Within 
those lim'its they have their province. AVhen, 
however, they command things unlawful 
and wrong, obedience is a sin, and disolDe- 
dience a virtue. They have exceeded the 
the limits of their province, and have in- 
trenched on the rights of God. With this 
accords the word of God. 

Prov. XXX. 17 : " The eye that mocketh 
at his father, and despiseth to obey his mo- 
ther, the ravens of the valley shall pick it 
out, and the young eagles shall eat it." 

Eph. vi. 1 : " Children obey your parents 
in the Lord : for that is right." 

Col. iii. 20 : " Children, obey your pa- 
rents in all things : for this is well-pleasing 
unto the Lord." 

4. Children are bound to nourish and sup- 
port their parents in old age, if their cir- 
cumstances require it. 

Unfortunately, too many children never 
have this duty to perform, having never 



themselves enjoyed a parent's love and a 
parent's care. But in the case of those 
whose parents are spared to bring them up, 
and who advance on into a second childhood, 
the children of such parents should regard 
it, not merely as a duty, but as the highest 
privilege to give them shelter under their 
roof, and nurture them with the tenderest 
hand of affection. No claim of right in 
parents, and no obligation of duty on the 
child should be felt as more binding and 
sacred than this. Here the Spirit of Christi- 
anity triumphs over all other religions. 

SECTION IV. 

Masters and Servants. 

By masters and servants, in this section, 
no reference is had to what is called slavery. 
That system of chattelizing humanity, can- 
not be arranged under the law of reciprocity, 
which governs all legitimate relations, and 
therefore cannot be discussed as a system to 
be regulated by the law of morality. It 
will require a separate examination as an 
outlaw. 

By servants and masters is meant the re- 
lations under which the several forms of 
voluntary labor is performed for a consider- 
ation. The parties in such cases are de- 
scribed, in Scripture language, as masters 
and servants. The same idea is expressed 
among us by the terms, employers and em- 
ployed. The disuse of the terms, master 
and servant to express the relation between 
an employer and a person voluntarily em- 
ployed, has doubtless, in this country, re- 
sulted from the existence of chattel slavery. 
As slave owners apply the term servant to 
their human chattels, and are called masters 
by them, free laborers revolt at the use of 
the same terms to express the relation 
which subsists between them and their em- 
ployers. But in England, and other coun- 
tries where chattel slavery has no existence, 
the old Bible terms, master and servants, 
are used to denote the relation between 
free laborers and their employers. This is 
a relation which always has existed, and 



396 



THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. [BOOK III. 



doubtless will continue to exist. It is pro 
vided for and regulated in the Scriptures. 
It is the next relation which arises in the 
progress of human society, after that of 
parents and children, and requires to be 
considered in this place. For a writer in 
this country, and living in a free state, and 
having made himself a little nolorious by 
his opposition to chattel slavery, to treat 
of the duties of masters and servants, by 
applying those Scriptures which speak of 
their duties, to free laborers and their em- 
ployers, will be liable to be regarded by all 
pro-slavery minds as a perversion of the 
sacred text. To regard the very texts 
which have been relied upon to support 
chattel slavery, as the law regulating free 
labor, involves a manifest absurdity, either 
on the part of those who apply them to the 
support of slavery, or on the part of the 
writer who regards them as furnishing the 
law regulating free labor. One thing is 
certain, that is, if these Scriptures which 
treat of the duties of masters and servants, 
do not furnish the law for the government 
of free employers and free laborers, we have 
no such law 

It is held that these Scriptures relate to 
the duties of employers and free laborers, 
and that the writer may not appear to be 
influenced by his peculiar relation and attl 
tude of hostility to chattel slavery, the sub- 
ject shall be presented principally, in the lau 
guage of the Eev. Kichard Watson, who 
wrote on the subject where no slavery ex- 
ists, but where these terms, servant and 
master, are still applied to a system of free 
labor. Mr. Watson includes all classes of 
servants in his argument, and hence, he 
adapts his remarks more to those appren- 
tices bound for a term of years, and such 
as may be permanently employed, than to 
mere trancient laborers, who may be em- 
ployed for a few days or weeks. 

1. Of the duties of servants Mr. Wat- 
son says, 

" Government in masters, as well as in fa- 
thers, is an appointment of God, though dif- 



to be honored. ' Let as many servants as 
are under the yoke, count their own mas- 
ters worthy of all honor , ' a direction 
which enjoins both respectful thoughts, and 
humanity and propriety of external demean- 
or towards them. Obedience to their com- 
mands in all things lawful is next enforced : 
which obedience is to be grounded on prin- 
ciple and conscience ; on ' singleness of 
heart, as unto Christ ; ' thus serving a mas- 
ter with the same sincerity, the same desire 
to do the appointed work well, as is requir- 
ed of us by Christ. This service is also to 
be cheerful, and not wrung out merely by a 
sense of duty ; ^ Not with eye service, as 
men pleasers ; ' not having respect simply 
to the approbation of the master, but ' as 
the servants of Christ,' making profession 
of his religion, ' doing the will of God, ' in 
this branch of duty, ' from the heart, ' with 
alacrity and good feeling. The duties of 
servants, stated in these brief precepts, might 
easily be shown to comprehend every par- 
ticular which can be justly required of per- 
sons in this station ; and the whole is en- 
forced by a sanction which could have no 
place but in a revelation from God, — ' know- 
ing that whatsoever good thing any man 
doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, 
\vhether he be bond or free. ' Eph. vi. 5. 
In other words, even the common duties of 
servants, when faithfully, cheerfully, and 
piously performed, are by Christianity made 
rewardable actions ; ' Of the Lord ye shall 
receive a reward,' " 

2. Of the duties of masters, Mr. Watsoa 
continues, 

" The duties of servants and masters are, 
however, strictly reciprocal. Hence the 
Apostle continues his injunctions as to the 
right discharge of these relations, by saying, 
immediately after he had prescribed the con- 
duct of servants, ' And ye masters, do the 
same things unto them ; ' that is, act to- 
wards them upon the same equitable con- 
scientious, and benevolent principles, as you 
exact from them. He then grounds his 
rules, as to masters, upon the great and in- 



fering in circumstances; and it is, therefore,, fluential principle, 'Knowing that your 



i 



CHAP. III.] THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS. 



397 



Master is in heaven ; ' tliat yon are' under 
authority, and are accountable to him for 
your conduct to your servants. Thus mas- 
ters are put under the eye of God, who not 
only maintains their authority, when proper- 
ly exeicised, by making their servants ac- 
countable for any contempt of it, and for 
every other failure of duty, but also holds 
the master himself responsible for its just 
and mild exercise. ' A solemn and religious 
aspect is thus at once given to a relation, 
which by many is considered as one merely 
of interest. When the Apostle enjoins it on 
masters to * forbear threatening, ' he incul- 
cates the treatment of servants with kind- 
ness of manner, with humanity, and good 
nature ; and, by consequence also, the culti- 
vation of that benevolent feeling towards 
persons in this condition, which in all right- 
ly influenced minds, will flow from the con- 
sideration of their equality with themselves 
in the sight of God : their equal share in the 
benefits of redemption ; their relation to us 
as brethren in Christ, if they are ' partak- 
ers of like precious faith ; ' and their title 
to the common inheritance of heaven, where 
all those temporary distinctions on which 
human vanity is so apt to fasten shall be 
done away. There will also not be wanting, 
in such minds, a consideration of the service 
rendered (for the benefit is mutual) ; and a 
feeling of gratitude for service faithfully per- 
formed, although it is compensated by wages 
or hire. 

" To benevolent sentiment the Apostle, 
however, adds the principles of justice and 
equity ; * Masters, give to your servants 
that which is just and equal, knowing that 
ye also have a Master in heaven, ' who is 
the avenger of injustice. The terms just 
and equal, though terms of near aflanity, 
have a somewhat different signification. To 
give that which is just to a servant, is to 
deal with him according to an agreement 
made, but to give him what is equal, is to 
deal fairly and honestly with him, and to re- 
turn what is his due in reason and con- 
science, even when there are circumstances 
in the case which strict law would not 



oblige us to take into the account. ' Jus- 
tice makes our contracts the measure of our 
dealings with others, and equity our con- 
sciences. ' Equity here may also have 
respect particularly to that important rtle 
which obliges us to do to others what we 
would, in the same circumstances, have them 
to do to us. This rule of equity has a large 
range in the treatment of servants. It ex- 
cludes all arbitrary and tyrannical govern- 
ment ; it teaches masters to respect the 
strength and capacity of their servants ; it 
represses rage and passion, contumely and 
insult ; and it directs that their labor shall 
not be so extended as not to leave proper 
time for rest, for attendance on God's wor- 
ship, and, at proper seasons, for recreation. 

" The religious duties of masters are also 
of great importance. 

" Under the Old Testament, the servants 
of a house partook of the common benefit of 
the true religion, as appears from the case 
of the servants of Abraham, who were all 
brought into the covenant of circumcision ; 
and from the early prohibition of idolatrous 
practices in families, and, consequently, the 
maintenance of the common worship of God. 
The same consecration of whole families to 
God we see in the New Testament ; in the 
baptism of ' houses, ' and the existence of 
domestic Churches. The practice of incul- 
cating the true religion upon servants, pass- 
ed from the Jews to the first Christians, 
and followed indeed from the conscientious 
employment of the master's influence in fa- 
vor of piety ; a point to which we shall 
again advert. 

" From all this arises the duty of instruct- 
ing servants in the principles of religion ; of 
teaching them to read, and furnishing them 
with the Scriptures ; of having them pres- 
ent at family worship ; and of conversing 
with them faithfully and affectionately re- 
specting their best interests. In particular, 
it is to be observed, that servants have by 
the law of God a right to the Sabbath, of 
which no master can, without sin, deprive 
them. They are entitled under that law to 
rest on that day ; and that not only for the 



398 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



[book III. 



recreation of their strength and spirits, but^ 
especially, to enable them to attend public 
worship, and to read the Scriptures, and 
pray in private. Against this duty all 
those oflfeud who employ servants in works 
of gain : and also those who do not so ar- 
range the affairs of their households, that 
domestic servants may be as little occupied 
as possible with the aSairs of the house, in 
order that they may be able religiously to 
use a day which is made as much theirs as 
their masters', by the express letter of the 
law of Grod ; nor can the blessing of God be 
expected to rest upon families where this 
shocking indifference to the religious inter- 
ests of domestics, and this open disregard of 
the Divine command prevail. A Jewish 
strictness in some particulars is not bound 
upon Christians : as for example, the pro- 
hibition against lighting fires. These were 
parts of the municipal, not the moral law of 
the Jews ; and they have respect to a peo- 
ple living in a certain climate, and in pecu- 
liar circumstances. But even these prohib- 
itions are of use as teaching us self-denial, 
and that in all cases we ought to keep 
within the rules of necessity. Unnecessary 
occupations are clearly forbidden even when 
they do not come under the description of 
work for gain ; and when they are avoided, 
there will be sufficient leisure for every part 
of a family to enjoy the Sabbath as a day of 
rest, and as a day of undistracted devotion. " 

In the above, not the slightest reference is 
had to the system of chattel slavery, and 
yet it makes an application of the texts 
which some have supposed could find no ex- 
planation, only in the relation of man-owner 
and man owned. 



CHAPTEE IV. 

THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BE- 
INGS CONTINUED CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 

Civil government is an ordinance of God, 
designed to meet the necessities of mankind, 
who always have, always will, and always 
must live in society. 



The time never came, until recently, when 
a writer on revealed religion, would have 
found it necessary to institute an argument 
to prove that what is called civil govern- 
ment, may rightfully exist. That time ap- 
pears to have 'come, for there has risen 
among us a class of persons who profess to 
have discovered that civil government, and 
all civil institutions are, per se, rebellion 
against God. 

The argument in support of the fact that 
civil government may rightfully exist, need 
not be extended in a direct form, for the 
reason that all the arguments that are 
drawn from the Scriptures, to prove what 
are the duties of civil rulers, and of the peo- 
ple in regard to civil government, will 
equally establish ih.Q rightful existence of 
the institution of government. 



SECTION I. 

The Rightful Existence of Civil Govern- 
ment. 

In support of the doctrine of the rightful 
existence of civil government, the following 
considerations are urged. 

I. The origin of the institution. 

As it is too plain to be controverted, that 
God did give his sanction to civil govern- 
ment and penal laws, in Old Testament 
times, the advocates of the no-government 
theory have to assume that the goverments 
which God sanctioned were parts of a tem- 
porary system, which is repealed and super- 
seded by the Gospel. This position ren- 
ders an inquiry into the origin of civil 
government of the first importance ; for if 
it can be proved that the institution existed, 
with the divine approbation, from the com- 
mencement of human society, before any 
written law was given, it must follow that 
it is right in itself, and was not made right by 
the positive precepts of a law or system 
subsequently given ; and hence, could it be 
proved that every part of the Mosaic sys- 
tem was repealed by Christ, which, how- 
ever, is not admitted, it would not follow 



CHAP. IT.] 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



399 



that civil government is therefore repealed. 
As it was right before the Mosaic system 
was introduced, so it may remain right since 
its repeal. 

Let us now attempt to collect what little 
light may be gathered from times so remote 
as when the world was new, and when towns 
and cities were built by the sons of the first 
man. 

1. Human government has existed in 
some form ever since man began to multi- 
ply upon the earth. This position certainly 
cannot be disproved, for we have no account 
of any nation, on the face of the whole 
earth, at any time during all past ages, 
which did not exist under some kind of civil 
government. This does not prove neces- 
sarily that government is right, but it 
proves that all nations have thought it ne- 
cessary, and that they have thought it right 
to have government and laws, or else, be- 
lieving it to be wrong, no nation ever had 
faith enough in their own principles to put 
them in practice. However old in theory 
the no-government system may claim to be, 
it is untried in practice, for no nation ever 
ventured upon the experiment. 

2. Government has become refined, im- 
proved and strengthened, just in proportion 
as the people have become enlightened and 
brdught under the influence of civilization 
Light and civilization have at no time tend- 
ed to the overthrow of civil institutions, but 
to their improvement and establishment 
upon a firmer basis, while they have declined, 
and been perverted or overthrown, when 
darkness and superstition have gained the 
ascendency. This remark is made because 
it is not pretended that governments are 
always right, but that it is always right 
that there should be governments. Nor is 
it contended that governments, in order to 
be right, must be the same in form, in every 
age and country ; the advance and retro- 
grade of civilization and refinement, which 
mark the progress of human society, in dif- 
ferent ages and countries, must modify civil 
governments and all civil institutions. 

The first governments were patriarchal 



in form, in which the father governed his 
family, upon whose death, the oldest son 
succeeded in the government, until a division 
took place, and separate families and tribes 
were formed. The father governed his fam- 
ily, but when his children formed families of 
their own, each governed his own family, in 
such matters as concerned their domestic 
interests, and the father became a governor 
of all the families in those matters which 
concerned the intercourse of one family with 
another, and when the father died the oldst 
son took the general government. In this 
way it is easy to see how an empire might 
grow out of a single family, or how differ- 
ent tribes and nations came into being ; for 
as a family or tribe should become num- 
erous, it might send out a colony, or a sin- 
gle family might depart beyond the influence 
of the association, and proceed, upon the 
same principles, to raise up another tribe or 
nation. Such is not only the origin of civil 
government, but it resulted from the neces- 
sity of the case. As a family could not ex- 
ist without a head, to decide questions of 
right and order, which must arise between 
the members of every family, so a collec- 
tion or combination of families, as the tide of 
humanity should roll on, would need a gov- 
ernment and general rules to regulate all 
these families in their intercourse with each 
other. As questions would rise between 
the members of the same family, so would 
questions rise between different families, 
which could be settled only by a general 
government, the authority of which should 
be admitted by all. This view of the origin 
of civil government, shows that it naturally 
results from the social nature which we have 
received from the hand that made us, and 
furnishes a strong argument in support of 
its rightful existence. 

But .it may be said, that we are not to 
reason from our views of necessity, but 
from God's revealed will. This is admitted, 
but as we are inquiring what the Bible does 
teach on the subject, it is proper to avail 
ourselves of every help within our reach ; it 
is perfectly in point, therefore, to show the 



400 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



[book III 



origin and nature of the institution, and its 
adaptation to the wants of the human fami- 
ly. It has been urged with great power, in 
support of the divine authenticity of the 
Scriptures, that they are suited to the abso- 
lute wants of the human family, and if this 
argument be sound, which falls from the 
lips and flows from the pen of every theo- 
logian, in support of the claims of the Scrip- 
tures, it must be equally sound, to argue 
from the necessity of civil government, in 
support of the proposition that the Bible 
sanctions it ; it being admitted that the 
Bible, when understood, is a perfect system 
of morality, containing all that is necessary 
to set our footsteps in the right way. This 
presents a strong argument in support of 
civil government, which is rendered still 
stronger by the following consideration. 

3. The orgin of civil government, above 
pointed out, was in accordance with the 
purpose of God when he sent man into the 
world to people and subdue it. God evi- 
dently desinged that men should organize 
themselves into civil compacts, under such 
rules as should be required by the various 
circumstances, growing out of their increase 
in numbers, and their dispersion over the 
earth. Of course, a volume of testimony 
will not be expected on this point, since 
there was no record preserved, written at 
the time, of the dispensations of God, or the 
transactions of men, during the first two 
thousand five hundred years of the world's 
existence ; all the knowledge we have of 
these obscure ages, upon which we can rely, 
is derived from the few oral conversations, 
afterwards recorded, as having taken place 
between God and his creature man, during 
the lapse of so many departed centuries. 
We have, however, some light on this sub- 
ject, and what we have is so direct as to leave 
no doubt that God designed that there should 
exist, among men, authority and subordina- 
tion. 

Gen. iv. 7 : " Unto thee shall be his de- 
sires and thou shalt rule over him." 

On this text Dr. Clarke remarks : " These 
words are spoken of Abel's submission to 



Cain, his superior." This perfectly accords 
with the view already given, of the form of 
the first government. The father ruled hi? 
family, and the first-born son followed him 
in the government of the tribe. Cain was 
the first-born, and Abel the younger, and 
hence, God says to Cain, " if thou doest well 
shalt thou not be accepted ? * * * And unto 
thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule 
over him." God says to the first-born of 
the human family, that he shall rule over his 
younger brother, upon which principle the 
patriarchal governments immediately after 
sprung into being, and existed during the 
first ages of the world. 

It has now been shown that civil govern- 
ment is as old as human society, and that 
it came into being in accordance with the 
will of God. Now as civil government was 
right before any written law was given, 
it was not made right by the law, and 
hence, it cannot have been made wrong by 
the simple repeal of the law, could it be 
proved that the whole Mosaic system has 
been abolished. This remark is made of 
the right of human government, and not its 
form. It is easy to see that its right and 
leading principles might be understood, 
while its form, or the mode of carrying out 
these principles, could be left to the judg- 
ment of the various civil compacts, in view 
of the circumstances under which they may 
be called to act ; hence, the Mosaic system 
could give form and shape to all the civil 
institutions which existed under it, while its 
repeal would be only a repeal of such forms 
and modes as it prescribed, leaving the 
right of the institution unimpaired, the 
same as it existed from the beginning be- 
fore any written law was given. 

II. There are, in the Old Testament, 
predictions which speak of the existence of 
civil government in a manner to prove that 
it may rightfully exist. 

If it can be shown that the kingdoms of 
the world are not to be overthrown, but 
only purified and made righteous by the 
Gospel, when it shall fill the world, and 
bless all nations, it will fully settle the 



CHAP. lY.] 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



401 



question under consideration, by proving 
first, that government is morally lawful, 
and secondly, that it will always exist, 
maugre the opposition of certain modern 
reformers, who are aiming their blows at its 
very foundations. 

Ps. cxxxviii. 4, 5 : "All the kings of the 
earth shall praise thee, Lord, when they 
hear the words of thy mouth. Yea they 
shall sing in the ways of the Lord : for 
great is the glory of the Lord." 

This text proves that the exercise of re- 
gal authority is consistent with the most 
ardent piety, and the time is contemplated 
as a brighter age of the church, when " all 
the kings of the earth" shall hear the word 
of God, praise him, and sing in his ways. 
which, to us, appears utterly inconsistent 
with the belief that all civil government is 
necessarily wrong. 

Isa. xlix. 6,1: "I will also give thee 
for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest 
be my salvation unto the ends of the earth ; 
^- * * kings shall see and arise, princes 
also shall worship, because of the Lord 
that is faithful, and the Holy One of Is- 
rael." 

Verses 22, 23 : " Thussaith the Lord God, 
Behold, I "vvill lift up mine hand to the Gen- 
tiles, and set up my standard to the people, 
and they shall bring thy sons in their arms 
and thy daughters shall be carried upon 
their shoulders. And kings shall be thy 
nursing fathers, and their queens thy nurs- 
ing mothers." 

That this text relates to the success of 
the Gospel there can be no doubt, from the 
fact that it speaks of the call of the Gen- 
tiles ; and it not only clearly predicts the 
existence of civil government under the GoS' 
pel, but it predicts it in a way which seals 
it with the divine approbation. God prom- 
ises it as a great blessing, that kings and 
queens shall watch over the interests of the 
church, as affectionate fathers and mothers 
watch over the children of their solicitude, 
and can any one believe that such kings 
and queens will, at the same time, be usurp- 
ers, oppressors, and rebels against God ? 
26 



which must be the case if the modern the- 
ory of non-resistance be true. 

Isa. Ix. 3, 11, 16 : " And the Gentiles 
shall come to thy light, and kings to the 
brightness of thy rising. Therefore thy 
gates shall be open continually ; they shall 
not be shut day nor night ; that men may 
bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, 
and that their kings may be brought. Thou 
shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles,. 
and shall suck the breasts of kings." Sup 
pose all civil rulers to be oppressors and 
rebels against God, and the church is here 
comforted with God's most gracious prom- 
ise, that she shall be nourished at the breast 
of enthroned tyranny and bloody crime ! 

Eev. xxi. 24, 27 : " And the nations of 
them which are saved shall walk in the 
light of it ; and the kings of the earth do 
bring their glory and honor into it. And 
there shall in nowise enter into it anything 
that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh 
abomination." 

Of the city of which this is spoken. Dr. 
Clarke says, " This doubtless means the 
Christian church in a state of great pros- 
perity and purity." [See notes on verse 2.] 
Two things are to be noted here. 

1. The nations and kings are to come in 
with all their glory. 

2. Nothing is to enter in which defileth 
or worketh abomination. 

Therefore it is certain that the reign and 
glory of nations and kings is consistent with 
the purity of the Gospel church, and those 
who assert that no civil government can 
rightfully exist under the Gospel, must be 
wrong. 

It is worthy of remark that the above 
texts, and many more which might be 
quoted of a similar character, being pro- 
phetic, looked forward to the end of time, 
must render the task of overthrowing all 
civil government, an attempt to prove the 
prophetic portions of the Bible untrue. 

III. The Scriptures attribute civil gov- 
ernment, in certain cases, to God. 

1 Sam. x. 24 : " And Samuel said to all 
the people, See ye him whom the Lord hath 



402 



CIVIL GOYERNMENT. 



[book III. 



chosen, that there is none like him among 
all the people ? And all the people shouted 
and said, God save the king." 

2 Sam. vii. 8 : " Now therefore, so slialt 
thou say unto my servant David, Thus 
saith the Lord of hosts, I took thee from 
the sheep-cote, from following the sheep, to 
be ruler over my people Israel." 

Acts xiii. 20, 21, 22 : " And after that 
he gave unto them judges about the space 
of four hundred and fifty years, until Sam- 
uel the prophet. And afterward they de- 
sired a king : and God gave unto them 
Saul ; and when he had removed him, he 
raised up unto them David to be their 
king." 

Dan. ii. 37, 38 : " Thou king, art a 
king of kings : for the God of heaven hath 
given thee a kingdom, power and strength, 
and glory. And wheresoever the children 
of men dwell, the beast of the field, and the 
fowls of heaven, hath he given into thine 
hand, and hath made thee ruler over them 
aJl." 

Rom. xiii. 1, 2 : " The powers that be 
are ordained of God ; whosoever therefore 
resistcth the power resisteth the ordinance 
of God." 

These texts as clearly teach that God is 
the author of civil government as it could 
be taught in the use of words. It must be 
difficult to understand what clearer proof 
any one can ask, than the above furnishes. 
The first text declares that the Lord chose 
Saul to be king ; the second affirms that the 
Lord took David to be king ; the third as- 
serts that the Lord gave them both judges 
and kings ; the fourth declares that God 
gave to Nebuchadnezzar a kingdom, and 
strength, and glory ; and wheresoever the 
children of men dwelt, he gave into his 
hand, and made him ruler over them all ; 
while the fifth and last text asserts that 
civil authorities are ordained of God, and 
that whosoever resists thom, resists the ordi- 
nance of God. If the point is not proved by 
the above, a man could not prove it, if he 
"were allowed to write a text in the Bible to 
suit himself, for the express purpose of prov- 



ing it. "Will it be said that God condemns the 
very existence of civil government, after 
all these facts have been produced ? As 
well might it be said that God condemns 
his own conduct, and disapproves of his 
own administration. 

lY. God holds nations accountable for 
their conduct in their collective capacity. 

If it can be shown that God does recog- 
nize the existence of nations, in their civil 
organizations, and hold them responsible, 
collectively, for their actions, the proof will 
be conclusive that it is right that such na- 
tional establishments should exist. Let us 
then see what the doctrine of the Bible is 
on this subject. 

Ps. ix. 17 : " The wicked shall be turn- 
ed into hell and all the nations that forget 
God." 

It is not necessary to raise the question, 
what is meant by being turned into hell, in 
this text, whether it relates to the present 
or future world ? as all will doubtless agree 
that some kind of punishment for sin is in- 
tended, and in either case the argument will 
be the same, in proof of national accounta- 
bility. The text is clear proof that God 
holds both wicked persons and wicked na- 
tions, accountable to him for their conduct. 

Isa. Ix. 12 : '• For the nation and king- 
dom that will not serve thee shall perish ; 
yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted." 

This undoubtedly relates to the Gospel 
church, and hence it is seen that nations, 
as such, are held responsible for their 
conduct in rejecting or receiving the Gospel. 

Jer. xii. 17 : " But if they will not obey, 
I will utterly pluck up and destroy that na- 
tion." 

This is spoken of the nations that sur- 
rounded the Israelites, and God sa3^s " if 
they will diligently learn the ways of my 
people, then shall they be built in the midst 
of my people, but if they will not obey, I 
will utterly pluck them up and destroy that 
nation." A plainer illustration of the doc- 
trine of national responsibility could hardly 
be given. 

Chap, xviii. 7, 8 : "At what instance I 



CHAP. IV,] 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



403 



shall speak concerning a nation, and con- 
cerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull 
down and to destroy it ; If that nation, 
against whom I have pronounced, turn from 
their evil, I will repent of the evil that I 
thought to do unto them. And at what in- 
stance I shall speak concerning a nation or 
concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant 
it ; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey 
not my voice, then I will repent of the good 
wherewith I said I would benefit it." 

In this text God speaks of building up 
nations and of pulling down nations, just as 
they obey or disobey his voice. It is w^or- 
thy of remark that God speaks of a nation 
as one indivisible accountable agent, by 
using the pronoun it, thus : " If it do evil 
in my sight, that it obey not my voice." 
Such language would not be correct if God 
did not recognize the nation as a whole, in 
its collective capacity, as a subject of his 
government. 

This class of texts might be increased to 
almost any amount, but the above is suffi- 
cient to prove the point, that God governs 
nations as responsible agents in their coUec 
live capacity, and from this must follow the 
rightful existence of such national compacts. 
If all such civil associations were wrong in 
themselves, God would not treat with them 
in this capacity as acknowledged subjects 
of his government, promising to bless and 
build up the good and virtuous, and threat- 
ening to overthrow the bad. God speaks 
in the above text of a nation's turning from 
their evil, which is impossible, if to exist in 
a national capacity is evil in itself. If all 
civil government is a crime, a nation can 
turn away from their evil only by dissolving 
their civil relations, and ceasing to exist as 
a nation, which is certainly inconsistent with 
the promise of God, to plant them and to 
build them up as a nation, on condition that 
they will obey him. 

Y. Some of the best of men have held 
and discharged the functions of rulers and 
officers, under both the old and new dispen- 
sations. 

Gen. xiv. 18, 19 : " And Melchizedek 



king of Salem, brought forth bread and 
wine ; and he was priest of the most high 
God. And he blessed him, and said blessed 
be Abram of the most high God." 

Heb. vii. 1, 2 : '- For this Melchisedek, 
king of Salem, priest of the most high God, 
first being, by interpretation. King of right- 
eousness, and after that also king of Salem, 
which is king of peace." 

Here we have an account of a king, who 
was by name, king of righteousness and 
peace, and who was also priest of the most 
high God. This man lived, so far as we 
know, under no written law, and long before 
the Mosaic institutions had an existence, 
and hence, it is clear that he did not derive 
his authority and kingly rights from the 
Mosaic system, or from any known positive 
law, and as he was obviously a king hy 
right, and such without reference to any 
positive law, it must be right in itself that 
there should be government, and as it was 
right without reference to any positive law, 
and before any positive laws were given, it 
follows that it would remain right though 
every positive law should be repealed. This 
view silences the oft-repeated assertion that 
Christ has repealed those parts of the Old 
Testament which made civil government 
right, for the repeal of a law could make 
nothing wrong, only what depended upon 
such law for its rightful existence, but civil 
government did not depend upon any part 
of the written law of the Old Testament, 
for its rightful existence, for it was right 
before the law existed, and therefore it may 
be right after the law is repealed. 

Job xxix. 25 : "I chose out their way 
and sat chief, and dwelt as a king in the 
army." 

Job was a perfect man, yet he was a ru- 
ler, as is obvious from the above text. 

Ezra vii. 25, 26, 27 : " And thou, Ezra, 
after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine 
hand, set magistrates and judges which may 
judge all the people that are beyond the 
river, all such as know the laws of thy God ; 
and teach ye them that know them not. 
And whosoever will not do the law of thy 



404 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



[book III. 



God, and tlie laAV of the king, let judgment 
be executed speedily upon him, whether it 
be unto death, or to banishment, or to con- 
fiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. 
Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers, 
which hath put such a thing as this in the 
king's heart." 

Ezra was of the tribe of Levi, and a 
most holy and devoted servant of God, yet 
he was appointed by and acted under the 
authority of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, in 
the performance of the great work assigned 
him in the text. Though he was the ser- 
vant of God, and did nothing but what the 
law of God directed, yet in doing this, he 
also acted as the officer of the king of Per- 
sia, and not only acknowledged the king's 
authority, but even asserted the king's au- 
thority, as the ground of his right to govern 
the province, and for re-establishing the 
Jewish law and worship. The last of the 
three verses above quoted, is a strain of 
thanksgiving to God, for having " put such 
a thing in the king's heart." This proves 
beyond all doubt that this man of God did 
acknowledge the rightful existence of other 
governments besides that of the Jewish na- 
tion. This is an important consideration, 
as those who deny the right of civil govern- 
ment assert that the Jewish government was 
a positive institution, established for that 
particular people, and does not prove gov- 
ernment in general to be right ; but as there 
is here a clear acknowledgement of the right- 
ful existence of another government, this 
cavil falls to the ground. Ezra, Daniel, 
and other holy men of God, held offices 
under, and exercised the authority of other 
governments than that which was establish- 
ed directly by God over the Jews. 

Let us now come down to the days of the 
Gospel, and show that no change appears 
to have taken place at or subsequently to 
its introduction, in the conduct of good men 
with reference to the rightful existence of 
civil government. If Jesus Christ did re- 
peal and condemn all civil government, then 
no good man, under the light of the Gos- 
pel, could support civil government, or ex- 



ercise any of the peculiar functions of a 
civil officer. This must be absolutely true 
of those who acted under the personal min- 
istry of Jesus Christ, or that of his inspired 
Apostles, for there could be no doubt on the 
subject, while the light of inspiration shone 
through the minds of the ministry. Let U3 
then see if good men and believers ever held 
offices after that unearthly sermon which the 
Saviour preached upon the mount, in which 
it is claimed that he repealed all civil insti- 
tutions. 

Luke vii. 4-9 : " A certain Centurian'a 
servant was sick, and when he heard of Je- 
sus he sent unto him the elders of the Jews. 
And when they came to Jesus, they besought 
him, saying that he was worthy for whom 
he should do this, for he loveth our nation. 
And when he was not far from the house, 
the Centurian sent friends to him, saying 
Lord trouble not thyself ; foY I am not wor- 
thy that thou shouldest enter under my roof, 
but say in a word and my servant shall be 
healed. When Jesus heard these things he 
marvelled at him, and turned him about and 
said unto the people that followed him, I 
say unto you, I have not found so great faith, 
no, not in Israel." Of this man it may be 
remarked, 

1. That he was a believer in the Jewish 
religion, having built the Jews a synagogue, 
and was regarded by the Jews as pious. 

2. He now believed in Jesus Christ, with 
a faith which made the Saviour marvel, and 
which he declared to be greater than any 
that he had found among the Jews. 

3. This man was a Roman officer, which 
proves that it was not necessary to abandon 
all office holding and all government, in or- 
der to true piety under the personal ministry 
of Christ, and of course he did not preach 
against civil governments as non-resistants 
contend. 

Acts X. 1, 2 : " There was a certain man 
in Cesarea, called Cornelius, a centurian of 
the band called the Italian band. A devout 
man and one that feared God with all his 
house, and gave much alms to the people, 
and prayed to God alway." 



I 



CHAP. IV.] 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



405 



1. This man was aEoman officer. 

2. He was a very devout man, praying to 
God alway. He had ah'eady learned, at 
least, a general outline of the Gospel, for 
Peter said, in addressing him, The word 
•which God sent unto the children of Israel, 
preaching peace by Jesus Christ ; That 
word I say ye know, which was published 
throughout all Judea. " 

3. Peter more fully explained the mission 
and doctrine of Christ to him, and then 
commanded him to be baptised, without 
even .giving one intimation that he must 
give up all connection with civil govern- 
ment, nor is there any intimation that he in 
the least changed his course of life in this 
respect ; all of which is wholly irreconcilable 
with the idea that Christ taught the sinful 
ness of civil government per se, and that the 
apostles understood it and preached the 
same doctrine. Acts xiii. Y-12, we have 
an account of the conversion of a Eoman 
deputy to the faith of Christ, but there is 
no mention of his giving up the government 
of the province, as we might reasonably ex- 
pect had such been the case. 

Titus iii. 13 : " Bring Zenas the law- 
yer. " Though this person is not men- 
tioned elsewhere, and though it is not known 
whether he was a Jew or a Roman, yet two 
things are certain from this brief notice of 
him, viz : 

1. He was a Christian, living in, or at 
this time, passing through the Island of 
Crete. 

2. He was a lawyer, and as no one will 
contend that he is called a lawyer with re- 
ference to his having studied the Gospel, he 
must have been a Jewish or Roman lawyer, 
either of which is inconsistent with the non- 
resistant notions of Christianity. 

It is very singular indeed that no direct 
precept is given, and no one instance of ab- 
juration of civil government, or resignation 
of office by the converts to Christianity is 
recorded if, as is now contended by non- 
resistants, Christ did forbid all participa- 
tion in civil government. It is not so in 
these days : Mr. J. has renounced the 



church and published his withdrawment to 
the world ; and Mr. Q. Esq. has resigned 
the office of justice of the peace, and re- 
nounced and abjured forever all connection 
with and all participation in, civil govern- 
ment, in a letter addressed to His Excellen- 
cy the Governor, and has caused such letter 
to be published. Such is the notoriety 
which is sought for the principles of non- 
resistance in these days of reform, and if 
the Gospel, in the days of its purity, spread- 
ing under the eye of inspiration over prov- 
inces, kingdoms and empires, did actually 
require all who embraced it to renounce and 
abjure forever all civil government, it is in- 
credible that there should have been no one 
instance handed down to us in these latter 
times, upon the pages of sacred or profane 
history. 

YI. There are a great number and vari- 
ety of texts which teach the rightfulness of 
civil government by implication. 

Among the texts referred to are the 
following. 

Ps. ii. 10-12 : " Be wise now therefore, 
ye kings ; be instructed, all ye judges of 
the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and 
rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son lest 
he be angry, and ye perish from the way, 
when his wrath is kindled but a little." 
Dr. Clarke's notes on this text are directly 
to the point, as follows : 

"' Be wise, ye kings. An exhortation 
of the Gospel to the rulers and to all king- 
doms, nations, and states, to whom it may 
be sent. All these should listen to its max- 
ims, be governed by its precepts, and rule 
their subjects according to its dictates. 

" Be instructed, ye judges. Rather, be 
ye reformed. Cast away all your idola- 
trous maxims, and receive the Gospel as 
the laAv, or the basis of thd' law of the 
ind." 

That the text refers to the reign of 
Christ, or the Gospel dispensation, there 
can be no doubt, and yet it clearly implies 
the existence of kings and judges of the 
earth, who are called upon to serve the 
Lord, and to kiss the Son least he be angry 



406 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



[book III. 



with them, and destroy them ; i. e. cast 
them down from their rank and overturn 
their authority. This implies that kings 
and judges may do right under the Gospel, 
and please God, as such, and therefore it is 
not wrong in itself to be a king or a judge. 

Prov. xvi. 12 : " It is an abomination 
for kings to commit wickedness i for the 
throne is established by righteousness." 

This text certainly takes it for granted 
that it is right that there should be kings, 
for, 

1. If it were true that it is wickedness 
itself to be a king, there would be no good 
sense in the language ; it would be to talk 
about its being wrong for a man to commit 
wickedness, while holding a certain posi- 
tion, when the very act of holding that po- 
sition is wickedness, itself. 

2. If it is necessarily wrong to rule as a 
king, the text is not true, when it says, 
" the throne is established by righteous- 
ness," for in such case, wickedness and 
wickedness only could establish the throne 
of a king. 

Prov. XX. 28 : " Mercy and truth pre- 
ing ; and 
by mercy." 

This cannot be true, if there is no justice 
and mercy in the exercise of regal functions, 
and if the exercise of regal authority is con- 
sistent with justice and mercy, it must be 
right. If the throne of a king be estali- 
lished by mercy, as the text asserts, then 
the establishment of kings upon thrones 
must be right. 

Matt. xxii. 17 ; Mark xii. 14; Luke xx. 
22 : " Is it lawful to give tribute to Csesar 
or not ?" 

This question, taken in connection with 
our Saviour's answer, clearly implies the 
right of civil government. 

Matt. V. 24-26 ; Luke xii. 58-9 : "When 
thou goest with thine adversary to the mag- 
istrate, as thou art in the way, give dili- 
gence that thou mayest be delivered from 
him, lest he hale thee to the judge, and the 
judge deliver thee to the officer, and the offi- 
cer cast thee into prison. I tell thee thou 



shall not depart thence, till thou hast paid 
the very last mite." 

On this text. Dr. Clarke has made the fol- 
lowing remarks : 

" Agree with thine adversary quickly. 
Adversary, properly a plaintiff in law — a 
perfect law term. Our Lord enforces the 
exhortation given in the preceding verses 
from the consideration of what was deemed 
prudent in ordinary law suits." 

This text most clearly contemplates the 
existence of law, and of magistrates to ad- 
minister such law, and that cases will arise 
in which even brethren will resort to the law 
for the settlement of difficulties, or the re- 
dress of injuries. In Matt., the Saviour is 
speaking of brethren, when he introduces the 
subject of legal proceedings. '' If thou bring 
thy gift to the altar and remembcrest that 
thy brother hath aught against thee ; leave 
there thy gift before the altar and go thy 
way ; first be reconciled to thy brother. 
Agree with thine adversary quickly, while 
thou art in the way with him." From this 
subject we learn, 

1. That a brother is here termed an ad- 
versary, i. e., a plaintiff" in law. 

2. Christ speaks of these two brethren as 
going together to the magistrate to settle 
their differences, by a regular process of 
lavv" : '• When thou goest with thine adversary 
to the magistrate,'^ are words M^hich imply 
that we may go to a magistrate to settle 
difficulties. If Christ intended to condemn 
all law, and all magistrates, and to prohibit 
Christians from giving any countenance to 
law and legal proceedings, he Avould not 
have used such language. Instead of saying 
" WHEN THOU GOEST witli thine adversary to 
the magistrate,'" he would have said, never 
GO with thine adversary to the magistrate. 
This is a clear acknowledgment, on the 
part of our Saviour, of the rightful exist- 
ence of government, and of the rightful use 
of the law, when a party cannot obtain jus- 
tice without. But while the text proves 
the right of legal proceedings, it gives no 
countenance to unnecessary litigations, as it 
exhorts the parties, and especially the one iu 



CHAP. IV.] 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



40^ 



the wrong, to " give all diligence'' to have 
the matter settled between themselves before 
it is pressed through a course of law. 

Acts xvi. 37 : " But Paul said unto them, 
They have beaten us openly, uncondemned, 
being Romans, and have cast us into prison ; 
and now do they thrust us out privily? 
nay, verily ; but let them come themselves 
and fetch us out." 

Here St. Paul clearly asserts his rights 
as a Roman citizen, and charges the magis- 
trates with having violated the Roman law, 
in beating and imprisoning them uncon- 
demned, which he could not consistently have 
done, if he had believed that there is no 
binding force in law, and that neither him- 
self nor his accusers owed any allegiance to 
the government or to its laws. His com- 
plaint is not that they had been beaten and 
imprisoned, but that it had been done con- 
trary to the Roman law. Some may say 
that the Apostle might do all this, without 
admitting the rightful existence of the law. 
We admit he might, if he could be inconsis- 
tent, but not without. The whole force of 
his conduct went to make an impression 
upon the minds of all concerned, that he be 
lieved in the rightful existence of the law, 
and that he would avail himself of the poW' 
or of the law, in self-defence. It must have 
made this impression on the minds of the 
disciples, and it certainly made such an im- 
pression on the minds of the magistrates, 
for they were afraid when they heard of 
his remark. To make the least possible of 
this case, Paul did acknowledge himself to 
be a Roman citizen, in a legal sense, but our 
non-resistants of these times will not ack- 
nowledge that they are citizens in the sense 
of claiming or exercising civil immunities, 
and hence it follows that they hold differ- 
ent principles from St. Paul, or that they 
adhere closer to their principles than he did 
to his. 

Acts xxii. 25 : '' And as they bound 
him hwith thongs, Paul said unto the centu- 
rian that stood by. Is it lawful for you to 
scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncon- 
demned ?" 



As this text is so nearly of the character 
of the one quoted above, the remarks made 
upon that are equally applicable to this ; 
hence, it is not necessary to extend the ar- 
gument here. It is worthy of notice, how- 
ever, that it would be inconsistent for a man 
to appeal to the law as St. Paul did, in view 
of a given transaction, unless he admitted 
the law to be a proper rule of action in the 
case. Had St. Paul abjured all human 
government, as modern non-resistants have, 
the centurian might have jjut him to the 
blush, by replying. It is perfectly immaterial 
to you what is right or wrong by the Roman 
law, since you condemn all law as wrong, 
and what better than mockery is it for you 
to talk about being a Roman citizen, free 
horn, since you deny that you owe any 
allegiance to Rome, and have abjured and 
renounced all human governments for- 
ever ? 

In chap, xxiii. 20-22, we have another 
account of the Apostle's making an appeal 
to the existing authorities, in self-defence, 
the result of which was, the employment of 
nearly five hundred armed Roman soldiers, 
to defend him from the malice and rage of 
the Jews, under the protection of whose 
swords and shields and spears, flashing in 
the moonbeams of night, he was borne away 
from the scene of their rancor and bloody 
hate. When the Apostle knew that the 
Jews were lying in wait to kill him, he sent 
his sister's son to the chief captain, to inform 
him of the fact, and no one can doubt that 
his object was to secure himself through the 
authority of the chief captain. It is clear 
then that St. Paul did avail himself of the 
rights of a Roman citizen, Roman laws, 
Roman officers, and of the power of a Ro- 
man army, against the lawless violence of 
the Jews, which did amount to a counten- 
ancing of these things, for a man may not 
in this sense employ for his own advantage, 
what he condemns as necessarily and per- 
petually wrong. 

Chap. XXV. 11 : " For if I be an offend- 
er, or have committed anything worthy of 
death, I refuse not to die : but if there be 



408 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



[book III. 



none of those things whereof these accuse 
me,vno man may deliver me unto them. I 
appeal unto Cflesar." In this text there are 
two points, which clearly imply the right 
of civil government. 

1. The Apostle's declaration of his own 
willingness to abide by the law, proves the 
point. " For if I be an offender, or have 
done anything worthy of death, I refuse not 
to die." The Apostle could have had no 
right to consent to be tried and judged by 
the law, if the very existence of that law 
involved crime, and if the very act of judg- 
ing him according to that law, was a crimi- 
nal act. That he did consent to be tried 
and judged by the Koman law, cannot be 
denied, for he said, verse 10, " I stand at 
Cagsar's judgment seat, where I ought to be 
judged." If then, the act of holding courts 
and judging men, is sinful in itself, as our 
reformers of these times assert, St. Paul, by 
consenting to be tried by the Eoman law, 
became a party to a sinful transaction. 
The Apostle not only consented to be tried 
by the law, but consented to abide the pen- 
alty of the lav/ if he should be found guilty 
of having violated it. " If I be an offender 
or have done anything worthy of death, I 
refuse not to die !" A very strange propo- 
sition this, for one who believed that lio 
crime could justify the taking away of hu 
man life. If no offence can justify taking 
life, what right had St. Paul to say " I re 
fuse not to die, if I have committed anything 
worthy of death ?" If it be the doctrine 
of the Gospel, that corporeal punishment is 
never, under any circumstances, to be inflict- 
ed upon man, by man, for his crimes, St, 
Paul should never have consented to die 
at the decision of any court, but should, as 
the minister of such a Gospel, instead of 
making them the offer of being tried by the 
law, and dying under the law, if found 
guilty, protested against the whole proce 
dure, and if condemned and put to death 
died bearing testimony against their right 
to take away a man's life for any offence 
whatever. ^ 

YII. A denial of the rightful existence 



of civil government involves great absurdi- 
ties. 

It is a common remark that it is easier 
to pull down than to build up, and easier to 
find fault than to improve. Those who as- 
sail the rightful existence of civil govern- 
ment, would do well to point out some bet- 
ter plan of regulating society, and of sus- 
taining a peaceful and healthy intercouree 
between men and nations. It is common 
for those who assail existing establishments, 
to dwell wholly upon the absurdities and 
wrongs of what they would destroy, while 
they are very careful not to give a full and 
distinct view of what is to take its place, or 
of what will be the result of its removal. 
Such appears to us to be the case of those 
who have, for the last few years, been ma- 
king what they would have us understand 
to be, an exterminating war upon civil gov- 
ernment. They have said many and griev- 
ous things against government, while they 
have said but little of the blessings that have 
resulted from it, and less of the evils which 
would necessarily result from their no-gov- 
ernment theory. To these let the reader's 
attention now be directed. 

It should be borne in mind that we have 
to take human nature as it is, and not as it 
should be. If all men were perfectly hon- 
est, and sufficiently wise, always to know 
what is right between man and man, family 
and family, and nation and nation, we should 
see much less difficulty in the way of doing 
without civil government than we now do. 
There arc now many difficulties in the way, 
some of which we will now notice. 

It will obviously expose the honest and 
virtuous to the assaults of the vicious and 
lawless. As the Apostle said " All men 
have not faith," so we may now say, all men 
are not honest, are not disposed to do right. 
There has never been a time yet, since the 
first-born of our race stained his hands with 
his brother's blood, when there were not 
those who were disposed to riot upon the 
spoils of the innocent, and there is no pros- 
pect of an immediate and thorough refor- 
mation of the world in this respect. With 



CHAP. ly.] 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



409 



these facts before us, we cannot fail to see 
that fatal consequences must follow the non- 
resistant theory. 

1. Government will be left in the hands 
of the ungodly, on the supposition that non- 
resistance is to prevail as a moral and reli- 
gious question. It cannot be denied that 
the good and well-disposed will be first to 
embrace the no-government doctrine, on the 
supposition that it is the doctrine of Chris- 
tianity ; hence, as men embrace the system, 
they will retire from all civil matters and 
refuse to hold any office, and refuse to vote 
for any man in view of his election to office, 
and the result will be to leave the wicked 
and ill-disposed to mould and manage the 
government to suit themselves. We can- 
not expect that government will be aban- 
doned, so long as there shall be any consid- 
erable party to adhere to it, and hence, the 
increase of non-resistant principles will not 
tend to prevent the exercise of governmen- 
tal functions, but only tend to lesson the 
number of those who discharge these func- 
tions, without lessening the number of the 
governed, as non-resistants must always be 
numbered with the governed, so long as gov- 
ernment shall exist, while they cannot be 
numbered with the governors. If non-re- 
sistance shall ever make sufficient progress, 
the time will come when this whole nation 
will be governed by one tenth part of the 
population, and upon the supposition that 
non-resistance is the true doctrine of Chris- 
tianity, this tenth will be made up of the 
worst and most incorrigible to be found 
among the whole. This appears to be rath- 
er unpromising. It will hardly be said 
in view of it, " there is a good time com- 
ing." 

2. When the laws shall be made and ad- 
ministered by wicked men exclusively, with- 
out the restraints which, are now exerted by 
the commingling of the best of men in the 
affairs of state, there will be no security for 
the virtuous and defenceless, or such as might 
refuse to defend themselves. There are not 
wanting now, men who would hasten to 
plunder the innocent and spoil the virtuous, 



were it not for the strong arm of the law, 
and such we must expect there will be, until 
the last sinner shall be converted from the 
error of his way, and what will protect the 
innocent when these shall have the law in 
their own hands, to administer it to suit 
themselves ? And yet such a state of things 
must come, according to the natural course 
of things, if non-resistance is to progress 
gradually until it shall finally become uni- 
versal. Those who profess the no-govern- 
ment doctrine, may say they feel perfectly 
safe, though they publicly proclaim that 
they will not resort to violence or law in 
self-defence. They may well feel themselves 
secure, with all the virtuous in the land to 
defend them. Though they will not resort 
to the law for protection, yet every one who 
might be disposed to injure them, would feel 
no more security in so doing than though 
they were not non-resistants, because they 
would be brought to justice by those whose 
duty it is to see the law enforced. Taking 
this view, it m.ay be seen that they are in- 
debted to the influence of civil government 
for the security which they attribute to the 
charm of their non-resistance. That the 
existence of penal laws tends to prevent 
crime cannot be doabted, from this circum- 
stance ; those who commit crime, rarely if 
ever do it only with a view of escaping the 
penalty of the law. If human laws could 
be perfectly enforced, so as to make every 
one know that if he offended he would be 
sure to be detected and brought to justice, 
there would be but little crime committed, 
if any. Those crimes which may be com- 
mitted with the greatest security, are most 
frequent, which proves, beyond all doubt, 
that law tends to diminish crime. To pre- 
tend that law does not diminish crime, while 
we see the evil disposed exerting their inge- 
nuity to the utmost, so to commit offences 
as not to be detected, and then committing 
crime only when they suppose there is a fair 
probability of escape, and then, after they 
are detected, making every possible effort to 
evade the law, we say to pretend that law 
does not diminish crime, in view of these 



410 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



[book III. 



facts, borders so nearly upon insanity as not 
to be worthy of a serious refutation. Who 
indeed can believe for a moment that there 
are not less insulted and outraged females in 
our country, than there would be if there 
was no law against assaults and rapes ? 
Who believes that there are now as many 
dishonest insolvencies, as many forgeries, as 
many counterfeiters of the currency, and as 
many robbers upon the highways, as there 
would be if there were no punishments pro- 
vided for such crimes ? Who believes tha.t 
there are now as many murders committed 
as there would be if the murderer was not 
pursued by the vengeance of an insulted law ? 
Let it not be said that the force of opinion 
will prevent crime, for if there were no penal 
laws, and no officers of justice, the ojffender 
would only have to change his residence, 
and in some cases his name, to be a gentle- 
man at large, ready for further depreda- 
tions upon the honest and defenceless. In 
further proof that the force of opinion can- 
not be sufficient to restrain the vicious, so 
long as there shall be vicious men in the 
world, we have the fact that it does not 
now prove sufficient, on those points, where 
it is brought up to the full extent. Can 
public ophiion be made any stronger against 
wilful murder, horse stealing, or house burn- 
ing, than it now is ? We think not, for 
there is no one who in the least justifies 
them, even those who commit them despise 
them in all others, and condemn them in 
themselves. 

It is clear then that in the progress of the 
no-government theory, on the supposition 
that it is to prevail, there must come a time 
when the government will be in the hands 
of the evil disposed, and that then there 
will be no protection for the innocent and 
helpless. 

3. Such a state of things would tend to 
corrupt rather than to reform the commu 
nity. As punishment for crime has always 
been, and always must be a disgrace, when 
it shall come to the point where punishment 
shall cease, crime will lose half of its de- 
formity in the view of those whose rule of 



action is popular opinion, without reference 
to what is right in itself, and the result must 
be that though there may be a less number 
of persons disposed to commit crime, these 
will feel less restraint, and crime will become 
much more open and bold. This will tend 
to the re-production of general corruption, 
as evil examples have always been more ef- 
ficient in this perverse world than good ones, 
and as it is written by the pen of inspira- 
tion that " one sinner destroyeth much 
good." It has been said that men, restrain- 
ed from vice by the fear of punishment, are 
not made better, but nothing can be more 
false than this. Two essential benefits re- 
sult from restraining men from vicious prac- 
tices by the power of law, and the fear of 
punishment. 

(1.) Persons thus restrained, if not made 
positively good, are made comparatively 
better, i. e. they are prevented from being 
as bad as they otherwise would be. Sup- 
pose a person has it in his heart to commit 
a crime, and is restrained only by the fear 
of being punished, he is saved from that ad- 
ditional hardness of heart, which M^ould be 
the result of the commission of such crime, 
and from all other crimes which might re- 
sult from the commission of that one, as one 
crime often leads to another. He would 
also be saved from the influence of evil prac- 
tices, and who that knows anything of the 
power of evil habits once formed, will un- 
dervalue this advantage ? All this leaves 
him more within the influence of truth and 
moral principle, and renders his case much 
more hopeful than it would have been if he 
had not been restrained from the commis- 
sion of crime, by the fear of being hanged 
or sent to prison. 

(2.) The individual restrained by the fear 
of punishment, is not only benefitted him- 
self, but others are benefitted by being saved 
from the bad influence of his example, which 
is a matter of no small moment to the com- 
munity. Taking this view, it must appear 
obvious that when the no-government doc- 
trine shall have gained influence enough to 
prevent the operation of civil law, if ever 



CHAP. IV.] 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



411 



it shall proceed so far, it must react, and 
this great moral reform, so called, will find 
itself laid waste by the consequences of its 
own operations. Non-resistance may ope- 
rate very well, and appear to produce hap- 
py results, while its movements are under 
the healing influence of law, in the hands 
of the virtuous part of community, but let 
the honest and well-disposed be converted, 
let them once make a breach in the barriers 
of civil law, which now surround themselves 
as well as the other classes of the commu- 
nity, and they will find the dark waters of 
crime and general corruption pouring in 
upon them, in a torrent not to be restrained 
by a mere reproof in soft words. 



SECTION II. 

The Rights and Duties of Civil Government 

Having proved at so great length, in the 
preceding section, the rightful existence of 
civil government, the question of its rights 
and duties, may be disposed of in less 
space. 

It is the appointed instrument of God, 
for a specific purpose, and if we can ascer- 
tain what that purpose is, it will be easy 
to infer its rights and duties tiierefrom. 

I. Government is ordained of God for 
the good of the governed. By this is not 
meant that God has ordained the detail of 
government, but only that he has ordained 
that government shall exist for the good of 
the governed. The form of civil polity, 
and the branches into which it may be di- 
vided, and the number and classification of 
officers, are matters not settled by the word 
of God, but are left to be regulated by man, 
as times and circumstances may demand. 
That tliis is the right vie-w; of government, 
is plain from the following considerations. 

1. Government arises out of the neces- 
sity of human society. It is ordained oi 
appointed by God, but there is a reason foi 
it back of that appointment. There is a 
necessity of government ; social life and 
order cannot be maintained without it, and 



to meet this want, God has appointed civil 
government. As it is then ordained to 
meet a necessity, for the good of the gov- 
erned, it must be limited to that object, and 
is not called for and can have no rightful 
existence, beyond the point where it is ben- 
eficial to mankind, to the governed as a 
whole. 

2. God's government is for the good of 
the governed. This has been seen in previ- 
ous discussions. It is clear that the gov- 
ernment of God is administered for the 
good of the whole moral universe, and so all 
subordinate governments, which he has or- 
dained, must be for the good of all the gov- 
erned. 

In cosequence of the liability of man to 
err, and the imperfection of everything that 
is human, government often operates une- 
qually. But its design is the good of the 
wliole, and must be, since it has been ap- 
pointed by an impartial God. 

3. There is no other reason which can be 
assigned for the existence of Government, 
but the good of the governed. To suppose 
that the whole are to be governed for the 
benefit of a part, or for the benefit of the 
government, is too absurd to be entertained 
by common sense. It would be well illus- 
trated in this aspect, by Dr. Paley's pigeon 
story. ■ 

" If you should see a flock of pigeons in 
a field of corn, and if (instead of each pick- 
ing when and where it liked, taking just as 
much as it wanted and no more) you should 
see ninety-nine of them gathering all they 
got into a heap, reserving nothing for 
themselves but the chaff and refuse, keep- 
ing this heap for one, and that the weakest, 
perhaps, and worst pigeon of the flock, sit- 
ting round and looking on all the while, 
whilst this one was devouring, throwing 
about, and wasting it; and if a pigeon 
more hungry or hardy than the rest touched 
a grain of the hoard, all the others instantly 
flying upon it and tearing it to pieces. If 
you should see this you would see nothing 
more than is practiced every day, and es- 
tablished among men." 



412 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



[book III. 



• Governments have often been adminis- 
tered for their own benefit, and to the in 
jury of the million, but it is a perversion of 
the institution. 

II. The rights and powers of civil gov- 
ernment are equal to the duty of the same, 
and no more. 

1 . Government ha s a right to do just what 
duty demands, and no more. As govern- 
ment is instituted for the good of the gov- 
erned, governors must be bound to govern 
for their good, and that is to perform all 
the governmental acts which the good of 
all the governed requires. When that is 
done, the whole design of government is 
reached, and here, at the full end for which 
it is appointed, its rights cease, nor can it 
have any right beyond. It is certain there 
fore that the rights of government cannot 
go beyond the right of doing all that is for 
the good of all the governed. 

2. Government must have a right to em- 
ploy all the means, and use all the force 
which is necessary to the entire perform- 
ance of its duties, as above defined. What- 
ever is for the general good, government is 
bound to do, and what government is 
bound to do, it must have a right to do, 
by using all the means and force which is 
necessary to its performance. These points 
are so plain and so inevitable thai they 
need not be further elaborated. 

III. The duty of civil government, as 
viewed in the light of the preceding, may 
be summed up under four heads. 

1. The duty of legislation. 

This is the work of providing such rules 
or laws as are necessary to guide the more 
unlightened, and to protect all in their 
rights. These laws must all be conformed 
to right. Nothing must be enacted which 
is wrong, they must be conformed to the 
requirements of the Scriptures. There 
must be no law enacted which conflicts 
with any of the teachings of the Scriptures. 
The main end of legislation is to provide 
rules to carry out the principles taught in 
the Scriptures, in rules too general for par- 
ticular application. This finds an illustra- 



tion in a case already considered. It was 
shown that our Saviour taught that the 
marriage contract is dissolved by adultery, 
but no rule is found in the Scriptures for 
proving it, and declaring a divorce, in a 
manner to protect the innocent. Here 
civil government comes in, and enacts a 
law providing for the carrying out the 
right of divorce in case of adultery, in a 
manner to prevent abuse of the principle. 
There are many such cases. The golden 
rule requires two men, meeting upon the 
public road, under equal circumstances, 
each to give half the road, but it does not 
determine whether they shall give the right 
hand or the left hand half. Yet such a 
rule as will determine that question is ne- 
cessary, and government has the right of 
deciding all such questions, and of provid- 
ing rules accordingly. 

2. Government is charged with the duty, 
and hence has the right of rendering right- 
eous judgments in all litigated cases be- 
tween its subjects. This is so plain as to 
need but few remarks. That questions 
will arise requiring such action, every man 
knows. 

3. Government is bound to defend and 
protect its citizens from violence, and 
to secure to them the peaceable enjoy- 
ment of all their rights, to the best of 
its ability. Of course, government has a 
right to use all the force necessary to ac- 
complish it, so far as force can secure the 
end. 

4. Government has a right, and is bound 
to provide such penalties against crime, 
and to inflict those penalties, when the laAV 
is violated, as are proportioned to the sev- 
eral crimes, and as are necessary to prevent 
crime, and promote the good order and 
general iiTterests of the whole community. 

That the above views are sustained by 
the Scriptures, but few will deny. The 
following Scriptures are cited as belonging 
to the general class which support the views 
that have been advanced. 

Ps. Ixxii. 2, 4, 12, 14 : " He shall judge 
thy people with righteousness and thy poor 



CHAP. IV.] 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



413 



with judgment, he shall save the children 
of the needy, and shall break in pieces the 
oppressor. For he shall deliver the needy 
when he crieth ; the poor also and him that 
hath no helper. He shall redeem their 
soul from deceit and violence." 

This refers to Solomon as the prospec- 
tive king of Israel. Three principal things 
are here affirmed of this distinguished 
prince. 

1. The work of judgment. " He shall 
judge thy people with righteousness ;" that 
is, he shall give righteous decisions, in all 
cases between man and man, when parties 
come to him to be judged. This is one im- 
portant end of civil government, viz., to 
furnish a uniform method of settling dis- 
putes and differences among men, which 
the parties cannot settle themselves, and 
which will always exist, to a greater or 
less extent, in every community. 

2. The work of protecting the weak 
against the aggressions /of the strong, is 
another important object of civil govern- 
ment. '' He shall save the children of the 
needy. For he shall deliver the needy 
when he crieth, the poor also, and him that 
hath no helper. He shall redeem their 
soul from deceit and violence." It has 
always been the case that some have been 
disposed to trample upon the rights of oth 
ers, and to live upon the spoils of the inno- 
cent, and to protect them in the enjoyment 
of their rights, is the appropriate work of 
government. 

3. To inflict proper chastisement upon 
the wrong doer, is another object of civil 
government. " He shall save the children 
of the needy, and shall break in pieces the 
oppressor.'^ 

Prov. viii. 15, 16 : " By me kings reign 
and princes decree justice. By me princes 
rule and nobles, even all the judges of the 
earth." Ruling and decreeing justice are 
here pointed out as the proper work of 
kings, princes, and judges. 

Jer. xxi. 12 : " house of David, thus 
saith the Lord, Execute judgment in the 
morning, and deliver the spoiled out of the 



hand of the oppressor, lest my fury go out 
like fire, and burn that none can quench it." 
The same sentiment is repeated in chap, 
xxii. 1, 3. On this it may be remarked, 

1. The command relates principally to 
those in authority, who are charged with 
the administration of law and justice. 

2. The text requires those concerned to 
execute judgment in the morning. That is, 
to be prompt in the administration of jus- 
tice, that the injured are not left to suffer 
long without redress. 

3. They are required to execute judgment 
by delivering " the spoiled out of the hand 
of the oppressor," which cannot be done, 
only by the power of law, supported by 
physical force. To deliver the spoiled out 
of the hand of the oppressor, supposes that 
the oppressor is using physical force for the 
spoiling of his neighbor, and that govern- 
ment puts forth a greater physical force, in 
delivering the spoiled, than is exerted by 
the oppressor to retain his unlawful prey. 
Something more than moral suasion is evi- 
dently meant in this text. 

Rom. xiii. 3, 4 : " For rulers are not a 
terror to good works but to the evil. Wilt 
thou then not be afraid of the power ? do 
that which is good, and thou shalt have 
praise of the same ? for he is the minister 
of God to thee for good. But if thou doest 
that which is evil, be afraid ; for he beareth 
not the sword in vain ; for he is the minis- 
ter of God, a revenger to execute wrath 
upon him that doeth evil." 

1. This text most clearly relates to civil 
rulers. This point is so plain that, it is pre- 
sumed, no one will pretend to deny it. 

2. The text points out the duty of civil 
rulers. They are to protect the innocent 
and virtuous citizens in their persons, their 
property, and their characters. " Wilt thou 
not be afraid of the power ? [the ruler or 
officer] do ,that which is good, and thou 
shalt have praise of the same ; for he is the 
minister of God to thee for good." Rulers 
are also appointed for the punishment of 
evil doers. " If thou do that which is evil, 
be afraid for he beareth not the sword in 



414 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



[book III. 



vain : for he is the minister of God, a re- 
venger to execute wrath upon him that do- 
eth evil." If there was not another text in 
all the Bible to prove the right of govern- 
ment, and the right of magistrates to enforce 
laws, even in the punishment of evil doers, 
this would be sufiScient. 

This class of texts might be enlarged to 
almost any extent, but the above are suffi- 
cient. 



SECTION III 

Objections to the preceding views of Civil 
Government Answered. 

I. An objection is founded upon those 
Scriptures which are supposed by the ob- 
jector, to forbid all resistance of personal 
wrongs. These are found principally in the 
teachings of Christ, and shall be examined. 

Matt. V. 38, 39 : " Te have heard that 
it hath been said an eye for an eye, and a 
tooth for a tooth : But I say unto you that 
ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite 
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him tlie 
other also." 

It is presumed that there is no one text 
in all the Bible upon which more dependence 
is placed than upon this ; indeed, it appears to 
have suggested the very name by which those 
who condemn human governments, wish to 
be called, as they have taken the title of 
'• non-resistants.'^ I trust, however, to be able 
to make it appear that it is no more a repeal 
or condemnation of civil government than it 
is of the war of tongues which non-resistants 
wage against it. This strain of our Lord's 
sermon commences at the llth verse, which 
reads as follows : " Think not that I am 
come to destroy the law, or the prophets, 
I am not come to destroy but to fulfill." 

From this it is obvious that the Saviour 
did not repeal the law or annul any essential 
principle contained in it, but only explained 
it, in its heart-searching and spiritual charac- 
ter, and corrected certain misapplications of 
ity principles. Taking this view, it will be 
Been that he condemns that construction of 



the law which made it an instrument of 
private and personal revenge. The Jewish 
law which required " an eye for an eye, and 
a tooth for a tooth," was intended as a rule 
for the judges l^y which they were to be 
governed in the administration of even 
handed justice, but it appears that it was 
so construed and practiced upon as to au- 
thorize the injured party to take the execu- 
tion of the law into his own hands, making 
nimself the judge in his own case, and this, 
and this only, is what the Saviour condemned 
and forbade in this text. No man has a 
right to resist evil in this sense ; because a 
man knocks out my tooth, or puts out my eye, 
I may not therefore knock out his tooth, or 
put out his eye, but this is very far from 
proving that I may not claim and receive 
damage at the hands of the regularly con- 
stituted authorities, whose business it is to 
judge between the wrong doer and the wrong 
sufferer. 

That personal violence, by way of re- 
venge or retaliation, is what is here forbid- 
den, is obvious from the last clause of the 
text, " but whosoever shall smite thee on 
thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." 
Here turning the other cheek, when we are 
smitten on one, means no more than that 
we are not to return the blow. No man 
with a sane mind will contend that this is 
to be literally understood, that a man is ac- 
tually bound, when he is smitten on one 
cheek, to turn the other to be also smitten, 
instead of getting out of the way, if he has 
an opportunity. If a man should smite me 
on one cheek, and I had any reason to be- 
lieve he would repeat the blow, instead of 
turning the other to have him strike again, 
I should feel it my most solemn duty to ex- 
ert myself to get out of his reach before the 
second blow should come. If I supposed a 
man intended to strike me, and I could keep 
out of his way, I would do it, and so would 
every man, who would not fight, and it 
would be a strange doctrine indeed that a 
man may run at any time before he has 
received the first blow, but that if his 
enemy can only manage to give him one 



CHAP. IV.] 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



415 



blow on the clieek, he is thereby laid under 
obligations to stand and take the rest. It 
is clear then that by turning the other cheek, 
nothing is meant more than that we are not 
to return blow for blow, that we may not 
smite a man because he has smitten us, and 
this explains the whole subject, by showing 
the nature of the evil not to be resisted, and 
the nature of the resistance that is forbidden. 
" I say unto you that ye resist not evil." 
What evil ? Personal violence ; " whoso- 
ever shall smite thee." The evil then is 
that of being smitten. But how are we 
forbidden to resist this evil ? By not re- 
turning the blow. " If smitten on the right 
cheek, turn to him the other also," which 
has been shown above to mean nothing more 
than that we are not to smite in return, or 
in any way injure a man because he has in- 
jured us. This appears to be the plain and 
simple doctrine of the text, and it is no more 
than every professed Christian believes ; 
and it is as far from proving the theory of 
what is now called non-resistance as per- 
sonal violence and mob-ocracy is from the 
administration of just laws by regularly 
constituted authorities. To resist evil, in 
the sense of the text, is to take law and 
judgment into our own hands, and to decide 
for ourselves what injury has been done to 
us, and how much shall be repaid, while to 
maintain civil government, is to say we will 
not execute judgment for ourselves, but sub- 
mit it to others to say what injury has been 
done to us, and what punishment shall be 
awarded the evil doer ; hence, civil govern- 
ment is directly the opposite of what is for- 
bidden in the text, and is both designed and 
calculated to secure a compliance with this 
most important precept of our Lord. It is 
among the greatest wonders of the age that 
a precept of the Gospel, so obviously for 
bidding personal strife, retaliation and re- 
venge, should be construed into a prohibi- 
tion of civil government, which forbids the 
same thing, which the divine precept forbids, 
and which provides for the settlement of 
difficulties without a resort to the forbidden 
personal encounter, but such are the conclu- 



sions to which non-resistants must arrive in 
order to support their theory from this 
text. 

The above exposition is strengthened by 
the 40th verse ; " And if any man will sue 
thee at the law, and take away thy coat, 
let him have thy cloak also." On this text 
it may be remarked. 

1. That it contemplates the existence of 
law, as a means of compelling men to pay 
their debts, holding their property liable to 
a lawful seizure in case of non-payment. 
Without this there could be no such thing 
as suing a man at the law and taking away 
his coat. 

2. There is not the least intimation in 
the text that the existence of such law is 
wrong, or that it is wrong for us to avail 
ourselves of it in a proper way for a proper 
object. Suing a man at the law and taking 
away his coat, is here used to denote all op- 
pressive use of law, which is inconsistent 
with justice and benevolence. To sue a 
man at the law and take away his last 
bushel of bread corn, or anything else which 
is essential to his life and comfort, would 
come within the sense of this text, as much 
as taking away his coat. The coat is mere- 
ly put for any extreme case. It would be 
a very different thing to sue a man at the 
law and take from his abundance what is 
our due, and what we absolutely ndbd, from 
taking away his coat or what he cannot 
part with without suffering, and what wc 
do not really need. 

3. While the text does not forbid resort- 
ing to the law, or even directly forl^id tak- 
ing away a man's coat by law, it requires 
us to give our cloak also if the coat be tak- 
en. " If any man will sue thee at the law 
and take away thy coat, let him have thy 
cloak also. " Now, will any one say that 
this is to be literally understood ? If a man 
should sue any non-resistant and take away 
one of his garments, would he pursue him to 
urge upon him the other ? Surely not, un- 
less he should be more void of conTimon sense 
than I have supposed them to be generally. 
What then does the text mean ? X answer. 



416 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



[book III. 



it means just this, and no more, that we are 
not even to seek legal revenge, i. e. we must 
not sue a man at the law, because he has 
sued us. If a man takes any legal advant- 
age of us, we are not therefore to take law- 
ful revenge on him, but rather bear the in 
jury. This makes the text harmonize with 
the one considered above. That forbids un 
lawful revenge of unlawful injuries ; this 
forbids lawful revenge of lawful injuries. If 
a man smite ns on one cheek contrary to 
law, we are to turn the other also, i. e. not 
smite back again contrary to law ; and if a 
man sue us at the law and take away our 
coat, we are to let him have our cloak also, 
i. e. not sue him at the law because he has 
sued us at the law. 

The same principal is continued in the 
41st verse. " And whosoever will compel 
thee to go a mile, go with him twain. " 

No one will contend that we are to un- 
derstand this as laying us under obligation 
to go two miles, because we have been com- 
pelled to go one. It can mean no more 
than that we ought to suffer wrong rather 
than to resort to strife and conflict, where 
the wrong inflicted is such as may be borne 
without any violation of moral principle. 
If a man requires me to go a mile with him, 
I may do it, but if he requires me to wor- 
ship an idol, I must resist unto death, and 
suffer my life to be taken, rather than com- 
ply. To contend that this last text is to 
be literally carried out in practice, would 
overthrow the whole system of non-resist- 
ance. Being compelled to go a mile relates 
to the custom of transmitting intelligence 
by couriers placed at regular distances, 
first praticed among the Persians, from 
whose language the original word, angarvo, 
in this text is derived. They might seize 
on men, their horses or vessels for public 
service, while on their progress. This prac- 
tice was common among the Eomans at 
our Saviour's time, and to this he doubtless 
alludes. This being the case, to suppose we 
are literally commanded to go only one 
mile, would be to suppose the whole system 
of civil 2:overnment is riffht. 



The above appears sufficient to show that 
non-resistance can derive no support from our 
Lord's sermon on the mount, but still before 
I dismiss the subject, I will devote a few 
observations to the difficulties which must 
attend the non-resistant interpretation of 
the subject. It will be agreed on all hands 
that non-resistance must depend wholly up- 
on a strictly literal interpretation of the 
text for whatever support it derives from 
the subject. " I say unto you, that ye re- 
sist not evil : " This cannot prove the duty 
of absolute non-resistance, only by a strict 
literal construction, which, as has been 
shown above, it will not bear. But let us 
here look at the consequences that will fol- 
low from such a construction. If the text 
forbids resistance at all in this sense, it for- 
bids all resistance of every kind and degree, 
and hence it will follow, 

1. That we are forbidden to correct or 
restrain our children. " I say unto you that 
ye resist not evil, means as clearly that we 
are not to correct a disobedient child as it 
does that we are not to confine a horse thief 
in prison, and a literal interpretation will 
render it as applicable to the one as the 
other. 

2. It will prohibit our making any phys- 
ical effort to prevent others from doing evil. 
Suppose the assassin holds the uplifted dag- 
gar ready to plunge it into the heart of a 
fellow being, am I to say stop, stop, it is 
wicked to kill ? and if I cannot persuade 
him to desist, am I to let him execute the 
deed ? or am I to seize the wretch by force 
and disarm him of his fatal weapon ? If I 
do the latter, I shall resist evil, and hence, 
if the text under consideration is to have a 
literal construction, I must look on and see 
one man murder another, if I cannot per- 
suade him not to do it, though I may have 
physical strength enough to prevent it. 
Can any man believe this ? 

3. Persons must not resist assaults upon 
themselves, nor even run to escape them, if 
the text is to be literally understood, but the 
assaulted person must stand and yield every- 
thing to the assailant, even female purity. 



CHAP. IV.] 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



417 



Suppose a female to be assaulted by a per- 
son of base intentions, it may be a wife as 
she is walking by her husband's side, and 
nothing but physical resistance will prevent 
the commission of the basest crime. Is she 
to indure the monster's assault without re- 
sistance, and is the husband, pledged for her 
protection, to look on and see the deed ac- 
complished, interposing nothing but soft 
words ? If indeed she could tear from his 
grasp and fly for safety, what could she do 
with that clause of the text which says? 
" Whosoever shall smite thee on one cheek, 
turn to him the other also ? \ And if she 
with physical strength repels the base at- 
tempt upon her purity, what will she do 
with that part of the text which says, " re- 
sist not evil ? " I need not push this train 
of thought further, for enough has been said 
to show that consequences must follow both 
fatal and ridiculous from that exposition of 
the text which is essential to make it favor 
non-resistance, and I will leave it to the 
candid reader to judge for himself, whether 
he will adopt the exposition which has such 
consequences attached to it, or take the ex- 
position which I have given above, which 
appears to be plain, consistent and unem- 
barrassed. 

It may be said in opposition to all this, 
that no such consequences are to be appre- 
hended, for when non-resistance shall prevail, 
there will be no violence to fear. That is 
true, but it would be a manifest absurdity 
to apply the text to such a state ; the ex- 
pression " whosoever shall smite thee on 
thy right cheek, " is applicable only to a 
state of things in which there is a liability 
to be smitten, and we cannot be called up- 
on to practice upon this precept until we 
are smitten. With these remarks I will 
leave this portion of divine truth to the con- 
sideration of the reader. 

Another text which has sometimes been 
urged against government and law, is found 
in 1. Cor. vi. 1. " Dare any of you, having 
a matter against another, go to law before 
the unjust, and not before the saints ? " This 
text does not in the least object to going to 
27 



law, but to the selection of an unjust court, 
instead of bringing it before the saints. In 
Corinth the judges were heathens and un- 
just, as we learn from the text, and of course 
difficulties among the Christians would not 
be likely to be judged according to Chris- 
tian principles, it was therefore improper 
for the disciples to bring their differences 
before such a court. This accounts for tho 
language of the 7th verse : " Why do ye 
not rather take wrong ? why do ye not suf- 
fer yourselves to be defrauded ? " An hon- 
est man is most likely to be injured by the 
decesion of an unjust court, and hence he 
had far better suffer himself to be defrauded 
in the first instance, than to bring his case 
before an unjust court, to incur a bill of cost 
and then be defrauded at last. 

It is worthy of remark also, that the 
apostle is here speaking of the intercourse 
of Christians with each other. It is weU 
understood that some denominations at this 
day do not allow their members to go to law 
with each other. But suppose the church 
can decide all matters between her members, 
there will still arise cases enough to be re- 
fered to civil magistrates which the church 
cannot settle. Situated as we are from the 
very circumstances of our community, we 
cannot fail to see the inapplicability of the 
rule of the church in the following cases : 

1. Differences between persons who are 
not members of the church. 

2. Differences between a member of the 
church, and a person who is not a member 
of the church ; if the wrong is on the part 
of him who does not belong to the church, 
the church, as such, has no power over the 
case. 

3. Sad experience has taught us that pro- 
fessed Christians sometimes get so far out 
of the way as to refuse to comply with the 
judgment of the church, and hence, have to 
be expelled. Such a procedure is only a 
vindication of the character of the rules, and 
the purity of the church ; it does not pro- 
cure personal justice for the injured party, 
and then he is at liberty to seek his due, if 
he can find an impartial court, for the text 



418 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



[BOOK III.. 



only forbids law suits between members of 
the cliurch before an unjust court, wliicb, in 
the case in the Apostle's eye, was a corrupt 
heathen court, as shown above. Because 
we are told that two members of the church 
ought not to go to law before an unjust 
heathen court, to infer that all civil govern- 
ment is therefore wrong, is a conclusion so 
far from the premises, that I am sure no 
ordinary mind could reach it. 

Another text, upon which much reliance is 
placed to prove the no-government theory, is 
found in Rom. xii. 17, 19 : " Recompense to 
no man evil for evil. Dearly beloved, avenge 
not yourselves, but rather give place unto 
wrath ; for it is written, vengeance is mine ; 
and I will repay it saith the Lord." Noth- 
ing can be more plain than that this text 
refers to personal revenge, and not to pun- 
ishment inflicted by civil goverment. 

Dr. Clarke understands by giving place 
unto wrath, forbearing to punish on our own 
responsibility, leaving it to be done by the 
civil magistrate ; by wrath he understands 
the punishment which the civil law inflicts 
upon criminals, and by giving place to this 
wrath, he understands forbearing to avenge 
a wrong committed upon us, that it may be 
done by the proper authority. [See his notes 
on the text.] This exposition certainly ac- 
cords well with the 4th verse of the follow- 
ing chapter : " But if thou do that which is 
evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the 
sword in vain; for he is the minister of 
God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him 
that doeth evil." Take the two verses 
together, and the sentiment will be as fol- 
lows : Dearly beloved, if any one injures 
you, "avenge not yourselves, but rathei 
give place unto wrath ; for it is written, 
vengeance is mine and I will repay it, saith 
the Lord ;" for the civil magistrate "bear 
■ eth not the sword in vain, for he is the min 
ister of God to execute wrath upon him that 
■doeth evil." If, then, we are not to avenge 
ourselves, because vengeance belongs to God 
. and if the civil magistrate be God's minister 
to "execute wrath upon him that doeth 
. evil," the case is a very plain one, but it is 



one which, instead of supporting the no- 
government theory, overthrows it forever. 

There are, perhaps, some other texts that 
may be quoted in favor of the non-resistant 
theory, but the passages above examined, are 
among those most relied upon, and hence, 
are sufficient to test the strength of the sys- 
tem, when an appeal is made to the Bible 
in its behalf. I have only attempted to con- 
sider some of those passages which are sup- 
posed to teach the doctrine of non-resistance 
directly, but those which are supposed to 
teach it indirectly, by inculcating certain 
principles and duties, which are supposed to 
be inconsistent with civil government, and 
all physical resistance, will be considered in 
future. 

II. It has been objected to the views of 
civil government and its functions which 
have been maintained, that they are incon- 
sistent with the duty of forgiveness as 
taught by Christ. 

The doctrine of forgiveness, as taught in 
the Bible, has no direct bearing upon the 
simple question of the validity of human 
government, for if we were not required to 
forgive our enemies, it would not follow, as 
a consequence, that human government is 
therefore right ; while, on the other hand, it. 
being admitted that we are required to for- 
o-ive our enemies, it does not follow, as a 
consequence, that human government is 
therefore wrong. The non-resistant must 
first take an important point for granted, 
before he can make any capital out of the 
doctrine of forgiveness in favor of his theory. 
He first assumes that punishment of some 
sort is essential to the existence of civil 
government, and then that punishment of 
every degree is inconsistent with forgive- 
ness, and then concludes that all government 
is wrong. That the reader may have the 
argument clearly before him, and be the 
better able to judge whether it be fairly met 
in what follows, I will state it to the best 
advantage I can, as follows : 

The Bible requires us to forgive our ene- 
mies : 
Forgiveness is inconsistent with the inflic- 



CHAP. IV.] 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



419 



tiou of punishment for crime, it is therefore 
wrong to punish men for crime : 

Civil government cannot be maintained 
without inflicting punishment upon those 
who violate its laws and regulations : 

Therefore civil government cannot be 
rightfully maintained. 

As plausible as this argument may ap- 
pear at first view, it is unsound in all its 
propositions save one, as a little examina- 
tion will show. It is freely admitted that 
we are required to forgive our enemies, 
about this, therefore, there need be no dis- 
pute. Now let us examine the remainder 
of the argument, and see how it will stand 
the test. 

It is not true that forgiveness is incon- 
sistent with punishment, as the argument 
asserts. This, indeed, would be true, if the 
duty of forgiveness, and the work of punish- 
ment, were to be performed by the same 
person, acting in his own individual right, 
but such is not the case. Those Scrip- 
tures which command us to forgive our 
enemies, impose upon us a duty as private 
individuals, which duty is inconsistent with 
private revenge, so that personal forgive- 
ness stands opposed to the personal render- 
ing of evil for evil, but to apply these 
Scriptures to arrest the admiration of pub- 
lic justice is manifestly absurd. If a text 
can be produced, which requires the admin- 
istrators of public justice to forgive all 
wrong doers in their official capacity, the 
work of civil government will be done up, 
so far as its right to punish offenders is 
concerned, but no such text is contained 
within the lids of the sacred volume. So 
far from this is the fact, that civil magis- 
trates are declared to be " the ministers of 
God to execute wrath upon him that doeth 
evil." Eom. xiii. 4. Taking this view, all 
difficulty vanishes, and the fallacy of the ar- 
gument, consists in applying to civil govern- 
ment, what relates to private individuals. 
The argument amounts to this, persons are 
forbiden to punish their enemies, on their 
own individual authority, but are required to 
forgive them, therefore civil magistrates are 



forbidden to punish offenders in their official 
capacity. 

But it will be said, in reply to this, that 
governments are composed of a number of 
individuals associated together^nd that the 
rights and powers of the whole are no more 
than the associated rights and powers of' 
each, so that the whole cannot have a right 
to do what each would not have a right to 
do for himself without the association. To 
this I reply, 

1. Were it admitted that an individual, 
considered aside from all civil society — a 
thing impossible in itself — would have a 
right to do for himself all that government 
has right to do for him in a state of society, 
still it would not follow that he could retain 
the right of doing the same things for him- 
self, when brought in contact with society, 
and when his interests should become asso- 
ciated with the interests of others. Could 
we conceive of a number of human beings 
standing alone, each possessing all the rights 
that are exercised by a well regulated gov- 
ernment, still, when these beings should be 
brought together, it would not follow that 
each would retain the right of doing for 
himself all that might be necessary to be 
done, for owing to the imperfection of the 
human judgment, to say nothing about in- 
tentional wrong, their interests would clash 
with each other, and here government would 
come in to do for them what each could 
not, under the circumstance, have the right 
of doing for himself. 

2. It is not admitted that government is 
a voluntary association as the objection 
supposes. An association purely voluntary, 
could not possess powers and rights, only 
what should grow out of the powers and 
rights of each individual, which he possessed 
before he joined the association, and which 
he brought with him into the association 
when he joined it : but civil government is 
not such an association, it does not depend 
upon the associated rights of its members 
for its rightful existence and power to do its 
appropriate work, but upon the will of God, 
who has ordained its existence. If, then, 



420 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



[BOOK III. 



government does not depend upon the volun- 
tary agreement of men, for its rightful ex- 
istence, but upon the will of God, it is very 
fallacious to reason that it cannot do certain 
things, because men have not a right to do 
those things in their individual capacity, 
for, in such case, the question is not, what 
have men a right to do as individuals, but 
for what purpose has God ordained govern- 
ment, and with what riglits has he clothed 
it ? If government be an ordinance of God, 
as has been shown, the rights and powers of 
government cannot be limited by the rights 
and powers of individuals, but depend 
wholly upon the will of God, who has or- 
dained it, for an important end, and clothed 
it with all the rights and powers necessary 
to enable it to secure that end. To argue 
that government cannot punish transgres- 
sors, because individual Christians are for- 
bidden to punish them on their individual 
responsibility, is to beg the whole question 
in debate. The question that is affirmed 
on one hand, and denied on the other, may 
be thus stated : 

Civil government is authorized by God. 
This the non-resistant denies. But what is 
his proof? His answer is that God com 
mands us as individuals, to forgive our ene- 
mies, and not to punish them, and government 
can have no right to do what the individuals 
of which it is composed may not do. But 
where is his proof that government may not 
do what individuals have not a right to do ? 
The only proof of this is, that civil govern- 
ment is unauthorized. Thus a principle is 
adduced in proof of a position, when tliat 
principle depends for its own truth upon the 
truth of the very position it is designed to 
prove true. 

III. It has been objected to the views of 
civil government, that they are inconsistent 
with the command to love our enemies. 

Non-resistants lay great stress upon those 
Scriptures which require us to love our ene- 
mies, inferring that punishment is inconsis- 
tent with love, and that it is also insepara- 
ble from the existence of civil government. 
This is fully met in the preceding section, 



for all that has there been said is equally 
applicable here, yet this position is liable to 
some other objections not there stated, 
which I will briefly notice. 

1. Our love for our enemies cannot be 
required to be greater than our love for our 
friends, so as to shrink from even-handed 
justice when called to act between our friends 
and enemies. It should be borne in mind, 
that the administrators of civil government 
do not act in their own cases, and hence do 
not act from personal or selfish feelings ; 
they judge between their fellow-men and 
dispense justice between man and man. 
Those between whom they judge must fall 
under one or the other of the following classes, 
friends, enemies, or neither. Consider 
further that government is called to act 
principally in those cases where one party 
is supposed to do to the other wrong. Sup- 
pose a case then, in which one of the con- 
tending parties is a friend and the other is 
an enemy to the civil magistrate, who is 
called upon to set the matter right between 
them. The non-resistant says it is wrong 
to punish the wrong doer, or to spoil him of 
his ill-gotten goods, because we are required 
to love our enemies. But are we not re- 
quired to love our friends ? and were we to 
suffer the enemy to trample upon the friend, 
should we not be as much wanting in love 
to that friend, as we should be wanting in 
love to the enemy, should we inflict on him 
so much penalty as would secure justice to 
the injured party ? There are two sides to 
the question, and it would be a strange doc- 
trine that we are so to love our enemies as 
to spare them to the injury of our friends. 
To suffer a murderer to run at large because 
we are required to love our enemies, would 
be to suppose that we are bound to love an 
enemy so well as to hate all the rest of the 
community for his sake, whose lives might 
be endangered by his liberty. The truth is, 
we are not required to love any person, 
friend or enemy, with any love, or in any 
degree, which is inconsistent with a proper 
regard for the security, rights and interests 
of all the rest of the community. 



CHAP. IV.] 



CIYIL GOVERNMENT. 



421 



2. That love may be consistent with the 
administration of justice, is obvious from 
the fact that God loves his enemies, and yet 
he punishes them for their crimes. Now, if 
punishment may be consistent with love, it 
cannot follow that all punishment is wrong 
because we are required to love our enemies ; 
and if it be wrong to punish transgressors, 
it must be wrong for some other cause than 
the reason that we are required to love those 
who injure us. Let such other reason then 
he adduced. 

But it may be asked, what is meant by our 
Saviour's command where he says, " Love 
your enemies ? " It, no doubt, means just 
what it says, but this love is to be regulated 
by the principles of eternal truth and jus- 
tice. It may be well to inquire what love 
is which we are to exercise towards all 
men. " Love," says Mr. Buck, " has been 
distinguished into 1, Love of esteem, which 
arises from the mere consideration of some 
excellency in an object, and belongs either 
to persons or things ; 2, Love of benevolence, 
which is an inclination to seek the happiness 
or welfare of anything ; 3, Love of compla- 
cence, which arises from the consideration of 
any object agreeable to us, and calculated 
to afford us pleasure. " — [Buck's Theologi- 
cal Dictionary, article Love. 

Admitting this division of the affection of 
the mind called love, there can be no doubt 
that it is the love of benevolence which we 
are required to exercise towards our ene- 
mies ; indeed, it could be no virtue in a 
Christian to love his enemies with the love 
of esteem or the love of complacence ; be- 
nevolence therefore is all that we are requir- 
ed to exercise towards our enemies by the 
command of Christ, when he says, "love 
your enemies. " This love must prompt 
us to do good to our enemies, so far as we 
can consistently with the principles of truth 
and justice, and the exercise of the same de- 
gree of benevolence towards the rest of our 
fellow-beings. Taking this view, the simple 
question is a very plain one, and may be 
thus stated : — Can we, consistently with the 



community in which we live, suffer crmiinals 
to run at large unrestrained by civil gov- 
ernment, and unpunished in conformity with 
penal law ? As it is simple benevolence 
which we are required to exercise towards 
our enemies, which is to be limited by the 
principles of righteousness, and the obliga- 
tions we owe to ourselves and all others, we 
cannot be bound to exercise that benevo- 
lence towards our enemies in any way which 
involves a want of benevolence towards 
others ; if therefore, the obligation which we 
are under to love our enemies, is inconsis- 
tent with the infliction of punishment for 
crime, it must be solely because justice and 
benevolence towards our fellow creatures, 
does not require us to protect the weak 
against the strong, and to " exercise judg- 
ment and deliver the spoiled out of the hand 
of the oppressor, " which is the very point 
to be proved. To say that justice and be- 
nevolence towards the community at large, 
does not require that the wicked be restrain- 
ed by penal law, is to beg the whole ques- 
tion in debate, and yet until this point is 
proved or assumed, it cannot appear that 
the love which we are required to exercise 
towards our enemies, forbids a proper pun- 
ishment for outrages committed upon the 
community. 

3. If, because we are required to love our 
enemies, we cannot punish them for crime, 
for the same reason parents may not correct 
their children, for they are required to love 
them. We are absolutely required to cor- 
rect our children, and yet we are required 
to love them, and if we may punish a child, 
and love him at the same time, then we may 
punish an enemy and love him too, and so 
fulfill the law of Christ. On this point the 
Bible is perfectly clear. Take the case of 
Eli, 1 Sam. iii. 13. " For I have told him 
that I will judge his house forever, for the 
iniquity which he knoweth, because his sons 
made themselves vile and he restrained thera 
not. " God here clearly threatens Eli for 
not having restrained his sons. That some- 
thing more is here meant than non-resistant 
restraint is too plain to be denied. We. 



422 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



[book III; 



read Chap. ii. 22, 23, 24. " Now Eli was 
very old, and heard all that his sons did 
unto all Israel, and he said unto them, Why 
do ye such things ? for I hear of your evil 
doings by all this people. Nay, my sons : 
for it is no good report that I hear : ye 
make the Lord's people to transgress. " Here 
it is seen that Eli practiced upon the prin- 
ple of non-resistance, but God required him 
to go further and to restrain his sons, and 
yet no one will pretend that God required 
him to hate his sons, but rather to love them, 
and hence the exercise of compulsory re- 
straint is consistent with love, and as this 
is true in relation to children, so is it true 
in relation to friends, enemies, and our fel- 
low-beings generally. If we may punish 
our children and love them at the same 
time, then may we punish an enemy and 
love him at the same time, as remarked 
above. The following are selected from the 
many Scriptures which refer to this subject. 

Prov. xiii. 24 : " He that spareth his 
rod hateth his son : but he that loveth him 
chasteneth him betimes. " 

Prov. xxii. 15 : Foolishness is bound in 
the heart of a child ; but the rod of correc- 
tion shall drive it far from him. " 

Prov. xxiii. 13, 14: "Withhold not 
correction from the child : for if thou beat- 
est him with a rod, he shall not die. Thou 
shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt de- 
liver his soul from hell. " 

Prov. xxix. 15, 17 : " The rod and re- 
proof give wisdom : but a child left to him- 
self bringeth his mother to shame. Correct 
thy son and he shall give thee rest ; yea, he 
shall give delight unto thy soul. " 

The above quotations place the duty of 
correcting our children, as their conduct 
may require, beyond a doubt ; nor can all 
this be disposed of by simply saying that it 
is Old Testament doctrine, for the whole 
system of parental government, here taught, 
is referred to and sanctioned in the New 
Testament. 

Heb. xii. 5-11 : " And ye have forgot- 
ten the exhortation, which speaketh unto 
you as unto children. My son despise not 



thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint 
when thou art rebuked of him : For whom 
the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourg- 
eth every son whom he receiveth. If ye 
endure chastening, God dealeth with you as 
with sons, for what son is he whom the fath- 
er chasteneth not ? " But if ye be without 
chastisement, whereofall are partakers, then 
are ye bastards and not sons. Further- 
more, we have had fathers of our flesh, 
which corrected us ; and we gave them rev- 
erence : shall we not much rather be in sub- 
jection to the Father of spirits and live. 
For they, verily, for a few days chastened 
us after their own pleasure ; but he for our 
profit, that we might be partakers of his 
holiness. Now no chastening for the pres- 
ent seemeth to be joyous, but grievous, nev- 
ertheless, afterwards it yieldeth the peacea- 
ble fruit of righteousness unto them which 
are exercised thereby " It has now been 
shown that physical resistance, and even 
corporeal punishment, is consistent with 
love, even with the tender regard which a 
father feels for his son, and if so, how ab- 
surd must it appear to argue that the love 
which we are required to exercise towards 
our enemies, forbids all such correction ? 

lY. It has been objected that the 
views of civil government which have been 
advocated are inconsistent with the suppos- 
ed individuality of human life, which the ob- 
jector assumes. This argument, like those 
already noticed, takes one important point 
for granted, viz : that the sacrifice of hu- 
man life, is essential to the maintenance of 
civil government. To make the argument 
good, two points must be proved, viz : first, 
that civil government cannot be right with- 
out involving the right of taking human 
life, and secondly, that the right of takino- hu- 
man life can in no case exist. If these two 
points can both be proved, the argument will 
be conclusive, but it appears to me that they 
are both untenable, as I will attempt to show. 

1. It is not true that civil government 
cannot be right, Avithout involving the right 
to take human life. 

Those who deny the right of human gov- 



CHAP. lY.] 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



423 



ernment, will no donbt admit, that family 
government should exist, that parents should 
stand at the head of their families, and train 
up their children " in the nurture and ad- 
monition of the Lord, " and that children 
should obey all righteous commands ; this, 
I say, no doubt they will admit to be both 
right in itself, and of binding obligation, 
but still they will deny that it is right to 
maintain it by personal violence, and at the 
expense of life. Now the same thing might 
be true of civil government, it might be the 
duty of the people to have a government, 
and to submit to equal laws formed in ac- 
cordance with the will of the majority, and 
yet it might not be right to maintain such 
a state of things at the sacrifice of life. The 
fallacy consists in confounding the rightful 
existence of civil government, with the right 
of resorting to certain measures to maintain 
it, which are distinct points. 

2. "Were it admitted that the right of 
civil government cannot exist without the 
right of taking human life in certain cases, 
it would not prove human government 
wrong, but only strengthen the argument 
by which it is proved right to take human 
life in certain cases. It has been proved 
that civil government is right ; and the ar- 
guments by which this has been done stand 
independently of the right of taking human 
life, and hence, if non-resistants can prove 
that the right of human government neces- 
sarily involves the right of taking human 
life, it will follow that it is right to take 
human life. 

3. It is denied that human life is invio 
late, in the sense in which non-resistants 
assert it to he. That one man has not a 
right to take the life of another, on his 
own responsibility, or by way of personal 
revenge, I admit. I admit that human life 
is so far inviolate that no man's life can be 
rightfully taken, unless it be forfeited by 
the law of God, who is the author of life. 
On this point, however, I shall not attempt 
a labored argument, but only adduce a few 
plain portions of Scripture. 

Gen. ix. 5, 6 : " And your blood of your 



lives will I require ; at the hand of every 
beast will I require it, and at the hand of 
man ; at the hand of every man's brother 
will I require the life of man. Whoso 
sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his 
blood be shed." 

This text is perfectly plain, and fully sus- 
tains the position that the life of man may 
be taken for willful murder. It appears to 
be a principle settled by God himself, that 
he who willfully takes away the life of his 
fellow-being, by that act forfeits his own 
life. So far as my information extends, 
there are but two methods of explaining 
this text, with a view to evade its force in 
proof of the right of inflicting capital pun- 
ishment, both of which I will examine. No 
effort is necessary to explain or prove what 
the text means, it is so plain and direct of 
itself ; if it can be shown that the methods 
referred to, of attempting to explain away 
its force are fallacious, the text itself will 
stand forth as incontrovertible evidence. 

It is contended by some that the text is 
a mere prediction, that it does not declare 
the right of shedding the blood of him who 
first sheds blood, as a principle, but only 
asserts the fact that if one man should kill 
another, some other wicked man would kiU 
him. This exposition is so far-fetched as 
hardly to deserve a serious reply, but for 
the sake of meeting every argument, I 
offer the following observations. 

1. In this sense the text is not true. The 
text came directly from the mouth of God, 
and hence, is a divine prediction, if a pre- 
diction at all, and must be strictly and fully 
true. Now, though it is admitted that it 
sometimes happens that a murderer is mur- 
dered, yet it is not generally true, and 
therefore such an exposition must prove 
fatal to the inspiration of the Scriptures. 
Prophecy has been relied upon as one of 
the clearest evidences of the divine author- 
ity of the Bible, but suppose prophecy 
failed in as great a number of cases in pro- 
portion to the whole, on other subjects, as 
it does in this case, on the supposition that 
the text is a prediction, foretelling that 



424 



CIYIL GOVERNMENT. 



[book III. 



those who commit murder will in turn be 
murdered, and who could look an Infidel in 
the face and argue that the fulfillment of 
prophecy furnishes any special evidence 
that the prophets wrote and spoke as they 
were moved by the Holy Ghost?" It 
will not do to say that it is true as a gen- 
eral principle, that he that sheddeth man's 
blood does in turn have his own blood shed 
by man, for if prophecy is admitted to be 
true only as a general principle, there is no 
evidence of divine inspiration, since unin- 
spired men may assert general principles 
without danger to their reputation. But it 
is not true as a general principle that those 
who shed blood, have their blood shed in 
turn, as a consequence of their misconduct. 
How few of all the number of murderers 
and assassins, who have stained their hands 
in human blood, have been made victims, 
and in turn, poured out their blood to stain 
the hands of others ? Should it be said 
that all taking of human life is included in 
the text, and that taking into the account 
all executions for murder in compliance 
with civil law, it will appear true that those 
who shed man's blood, do generally have 
their blood shed by man, it would only in- 
volve the theory in greater difficulty. In 
such case it would follow that the sheriff 
who hangs a man for murder, in compliance 
with the law of the land, is a murderer, or 
that he sheds man's blood as much as Cain 
did when he slew his brother. This I be- 
lieve is the theory of non-resistants gener- 
ally, that to hang a man for murder is 
itself murder. If this be so, to make the 
text true as a prediction, it must be shown 
that sheriffs or hangmen are generally hung 
in turn, or in some other way have their 
blood shed by man. This every one knows 
is not true, and hence, the text cannot be a 
prediction if all taking of life for crime is 
shedding blood in the sense of the first 
clause. How few of all that have taken 
life by way of executing the laws through- 
out the world, have themselves been in any 
way put to death ? If then all taking of life is 
murder, the text is not true as a prediction. 



Should it be said that the hangman is not 
the murderer in fact, as he only executes 
the will of the law-makers, the case will be 
still worse for non-resistance, for in such 
case, every freeman in this land will find 
his hands stained with the blood of his fel- 
low-beings. If there is no case in which it 
is right to take life, and if all legal execu- 
tions are legal murders, as non-resistance 
teaches, in our republican government 
every man who votes for law- makers, is 
verily guilty of his brother's blood. The 
people in this country are responsible for 
the laws, and if legal executions are mur- 
ders, the people are responsible for murder, 
nor does it in the least lessen the guilt of 
each, that there are so many involved in 
the crime, for if ten men unite in the crime 
of murdering one, each is just as guilty as 
though he did the act alone, and the same 
is equally true of any greater number. 
Taking this view, it follows that if it is 
shedding man's blood,, in the sense of the 
first clause in the text, to execute a man 
according to law for the crime of murder, 
all who participate in the government and 
in any way sustain it, are guilty of shed- 
ding man's blood, and to make it true that 
•^ he that sheddeth man's, blood by man shall 
his blood be shed," it must be made to ap- 
pear that all in the nation, except non-re- 
sistants have their blood shed by man. 
This every one knows is not true, and hence 
it cannot be true that the text is to be un- 
derstood in the sense of a prediction. 

2. To understand the text as a prediction, 
asserting it as a fact to be fulfilled in the 
history of man, that he that sheddeth 
man's blood, shall have his blood shed by 
man, would be fatal to the non-resistance 
theory, and render their efforts at reform 
perfectly hopeless. If it be true, as a 
fact to be fulfilled in the history of so- 
ciety, non-resistance can never prevail, for 
as blood has been shed, it must come to 
pass that somebody will shed the blood of 
those by whom blood has already been shed ; 
and then it will be equally true that somebody 
else will shed their blood in turn, and so 



CHAP. lY.] 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



425 



bloodshed must succeed bloodshed, ad in fin- 
itum. On this principle murders may mul- 
tiply but they can never diminish ; they may 
increase because a man may shed the blood 
of one who never shed blood, which would 
constitute a new case, but to suppose that 
murders may grow less in number is to deny 
the exposition of the text, which makes it 
assert as a fact to be fulfilled in the course 
of human events, that " he that shed- 
deth man's blood, by man shall his blood 
be shed." But if we understand the text, 
not in the light of a prediction, but as a 
declaration of a principle of right, an asser- 
tion of the divine will that he that shed- 
deth man's blood, forfeits his own life, and 
that it may be taken by man, the above dif- 
ficulties all vanish. 

Another method of explaining away the 
force of this text, is to consider it a part of 
the Old Testament system, which has been re- 
pealed by Christ, and superseded by the Gos- 
pel, but this is without force for two reasons. 

1. It was no part of what was peculiar 
to the Jews, but what is common to all 
men, as it was spoken to the father of all na- 
tions before there was any distinction of 
races. The text was spoken to Noah on 
his coming forth from the ark, when there 
were but eight souls on the face of the 
whole earth, before God selected a particu- 
lar people, before he separated Abraham 
from his kindred to make of his posterity a 
chosen people, and hence, the text has no 
more reference to the Jews than it has to 
any other nation. Now, suppose it be ad- 
mitted that Christ repealed all that was pe- 
culiar to the Jews — and no one will pretend 
that he repealed what was not pecuhar to 
them — it will follow that this text remains 
untouched, by such supposed repeal as was 
peculiar to the Jewish economy. 

2. As the text under consideration existed 
prior to everything which was peculiar to 
the Jews, and formed no part of their pecu- 
liarities, it cannot be pretended that it 
has been repealed with their system en masse 
and hence it cannot be pretended that it has 
been repealed at all, unless it has been done 



by some special reference to the text by 
Christ or his apostles, which does not exist, 
and which no one pretends to produce. It 
is perfectly plain that whatever the text 
meant in the days of Noah, it means now, 
and whatever principle it inculcated when 
it fell from the lips of Jehovah, as he sent 
man forth to people the earth a second 
time, it inculcates now, and its plain and 
most obvious meaning is that he that shed- 
deth man's blood, forfeits his own life, and 
renders himself liable to have his blood 
rightfully shed by man. The very phrase- 
ology of the text confirms this view. God 
says, " your blood of your lives will I re- 
quire." God is not speaking of what men 
will do, but of what he will require. " At 
the hand of every beast will I require it ;" 
the beast that destroys the life of a man 
shall be slain, it being unsafe for him to be 
suffered to live, which was afterwards en- 
acted in the law of Moses. " At the hand 
of man ; and at the hand of every man's 
brother will I require the life of man ;" 
that is, he who takes away the life of man 
shall have the hfe he has destroyed required 
by God at his hand, and as he cannot render 
up the life he has destroyed, God will require 
his own life in place of it, hence, " He that 
sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood 
be shed." Should it be said that the fact 
that God requires life for life, does not au- 
thorize man to take the life of the murderer, 
the reply is, that the last clause of the text, 
" by man shall his blood be shed," clearly 
makes man the agent to execute the divine 
penalty as is fully confirmed by Som. xiii. 
4, where it is said of the civil magistrate, 
" He is the minister of God, a revenger to 
execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." 
I think it has now been shown that the text 
upon which the above remarks have been 
offered, is not to be regarded as a prediction, 
but as a declaration of the principle, that 
the person who willfully sheds man's blood, 
forfeits his life, and renders himself liable to 
have his blood rightfully shed by man. 

Exo. xxi. 12, 14 : " He that smiteth a 
man, so that he die, shall surely be put to 



426 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



[book III. 



death. If a man come presumptuously upon 
his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt 
take him from mine altar that he may die." 

Lev.xxiv. 17 : " He thatkilleth any man 
shall surely be put to death." 

These texts show that the law given by 
God himself to Noah, noticed above, was 
incorporated into the Mosaic system by 
which it again received the divine sanction, 
and though it may be argued that this sys- 
tem is not now in force, it does not affect 
the principle, inasmuch as it existed before 
the Mosaic law was given, and hence, it 
must remain even were it admitted that 
the whole Mosaic economy were replaced by 
Christ. But these texts also prove that 
the argument to which we are replying, is 
fallacious, so far as it is founded upon the 
supposed inviolability of human life. Hu- 
man life can be no more inviolable now, in 
itself considered, than it was in the days of 
Moses, and as God did then authorize the 
taking of human life for crime, it is clear 
that human life is not absolutely inviolable, 
so that God cannot authorize man to take 
it away. If then, human life is inviolable, 
it is because God has made it so by law, 
and not because it is so in itself, as it was 
once right to take life in certain cases. Now, 
whether or not God has forbidden the taking 
of human life in any case, is the question at 
issue, and to argue that he has so forbid- 
den is to beg the whole question. To ar- 
gue that human life may be taken in no 
case because it is absolutely inviolable in 
itself, is false because God did once author- 
ize the taking of life, and to argue from the 
inviolability of human life, on the ground 
that God has made it so by command, is to 
rest the argument on the command of God, 
in which case, let the command of God be 
plead directly. 

As it is perfectly plain that the Jews were 
not only authorized to take life, in certain 
cases, but were commanded so to do, being 
forbidden to suffer a murderer to live. It 
must require some positive interdiction on 
the part of Christ or his apostles to change 
the order of things in this respect, and ren- 



der it wrong to do what they had been iu 
the habit of practicing for ages under the 
divine sanction, and as I have already shown 
that no such direct prohibition or repeal of 
the previous laws is found in the New Tes- 
tament, it appears to furnish a conclusive 
argument. But I will not leave it here, 
but show that there are some allusions to 
the infliction of capital punishment in the 
New Testament, which very much strength- 
en the argument above drawn from the Old 
Testament. Some of these passages have 
already been introduced in other parts of 
the argument, but for the sake of the bear- 
ing they have upon this point, they may be 
again alluded to. 

Matt. XX vi. 52 : " Then said Jesus unto 
him. Put up again thy sword into its place : 
for all they that take the sword shall per- 
ish by the sword." 

This text is true as a general principle, 
so far as this, those who take the sword are, 
as a general thing, as likely to be slain 
themselves as they are to slay their enemy ; 
it may also be true that by taking the sword, 
we may rouse others to take the sword 
against us ; it may be true still further, that 
a warlike nation may be more likely to be 
overcome and fall by war at last, but it 
cannot be strictly and universally true that 
those who take the sword fall by the sword. 
As has been remarked on another text, such 
a construction would involve the world in 
one continual scene of bloodshed to the end 
of time. When a man or nation has taken 
the sword, to fall by it, some other man or 
nation must take it, and that second man 
or nation, having taken the sword, a third 
must take it that the second may fall by it, 
and so we must go on to the end of time, to 
make the text strictly true in this sense. 
But there is a sense in which the text is 
true, if we only view it in connection with 
the circumstance which called it forth. Je- 
sus Christ was about being apprehended by 
a band sent by the constituted authorities 
for that purpose, and though he was inno- 
cent of the crimes laid to his charge, yet he 
was arrested on the ground that he was a 



CHAP. IV.] 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



42T 



wroDg doer, and was taken by tlie authority 1 
constituted for the purpose of apprehending 
wrong doers, and as it would be subversive 
of all lawful authority, to resist the officer 
in the discharge of his duty in attempting 
to apprehend a supposed criminal, on the 
ground of his innocence, before he had been 
tried to see whether he was guilty or not, 
the resistance which Peter engaged in, to 
defend his innocent master, was unlawful ; 
it was a resistance of lawful authority, and 
had any fell by his sword, he would have 
been guilty of murder of an aggravated 
character, murder committed upon an officer 
while discharging the functions of his office. 
Thus it is plain that Peter's conduct was a 
violation of the civil law under which he 
lived, that if he had killed any, he would have 
been liable to be put to death for murder un- 
der the law he had violated, in accordance 
with the word of Grod. " He that sheddeth 
man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." 
Taking this view, there is not only great 
propriety, but also great force in the words 
of Christ. " Put up again thy sword into 
its place : for all they that take the sword, 
shall perish by the sword." In accordance 
with this is John xviii. 36 : " Jesus an- 
swered, my kingdom is not of this world : 
if my kingdom were of this world, then 
would my servants fight, that I should 
not be delivered to the Jews." Because 
Christ's kingdom was not of this world, it 
did not take the place of, or supersede the 
constituted civil authorities which already 
existed under the divine sanction, and there- 
fore it was wrong for Peter to fight against 
those authorities in defence of Christ. " If 
my kingdom were of this world, then would 
my servants fight, that I should not be de- 
livered unto the Jews; " that is, if Christ's 
kingdom were of this world, it would nul- 
lify the authority and laws of all other 
kingdoms and governments, in which case 
he would have had the true civil authority 
on his side, and then it would have been 
right for Peter to use the sword in defence 
of rightful authority against unlawful vio- 
lence — " then would my servants fight, that 



I should not be delivered to the Jews," who 
could have had no authority to apprehend 
him or any one else, had his kingdom been 
of this world. This certainly looks like a 
sanction for forcibly maintaining law and 
government against lawless violence. 

Acts xiii. 28 : " And though they found 
no cause of death in him, yet desired they 
Pilate that he should be slain." 

This is said of Christ, and while it asserts 
his innocence, it clearly supposes there may 
be a cause which would justify putting a 
man to death. " They found no cause of 
death in him," is an expression which in- 
spiration would never use if there could be 
no such thing as a cause of death ; it clear- 
ly implies, therefore, that such a cause may 
exist. 

Acts XXV. 11 : " For if I be an offender, 
or have committed anything worthy of 
death, I refuse not to die." 

These words were spoken by St. Paul in 
self-defence, and clearly imply that he 
might have committed crimes for which it 
would have been right to put him to death. 
If no crime could justify the taking away 
of life, how could a holy Apostle say, " if 1 
have done anything worthy of death, I re- 
fuse not to die ?" If all taking of life is 
wrong, he was bound to refuse to die under 
any circumstances, by the hand of the exe- 
cutioner. 

It has sometimes been said that Christ 
never referred to any of the laws of the 
Old Testament havirg a death penalty, 
in a manner to endorse them as the laws of 
God. This is a mistake. He clearly did 
this very thing in the following text. 

Matt. XV. 4-6 : "For God commanded, 
saying, Honor thy father and mother : And 
he that curseth father or mother, let him die 
the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall 
say to his father or his mother. It is a gift, 
by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by 
me ; And honor not his father or his moth- 
er, he shall be free. Thus have ye made 
the commandment of God of none effect by 
your tradition." 



428 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



[book III. 



SECTION IV. 

The Duties of the People in regard to Civil 
Government. 

I. It is the duty of all men to submit to 
civil government. 

It can hardly be necessary to say that it 
is the duty of the people to create or insti- 
tute civil government. They are never 
found without it in some form. It is a ne- 
cessity, and always has and always will ex- 
ist, where there are people to be governed. 
They may find it necessary to change or 
modify government, but never to institute 
it, as a new thing. The people of this 
country, once found it necessary to revolu- 
tionize, as it was called, but they only sub- 
stituted one government for another. They 
were not in want of government, they had 
too much of it. If a people exists anywhere, 
who are not capable of instituting a govern- 
ment for themselves, and maintaining it, 
somebody will institute and maintain it for 
them, for it is man's destiny to be governed. 
This has always been true. When it is 
said above, that it is the duty of all men to sub- 
mit to civil government, it is not meant that a 
community is bound to submit to whatever 
may call itself civil government, and assume 
to exercise a civil jurisdiction over them. 
Nor is it meant that they are bound to sub- 
mit to all that a rightfully existing civil 
government may demand. Governments may 
do wrong like individuals. A father may 
abuse his child in some particular, and so 
may a servant do wrong by his master, 
without a rupture of the relations. Govern- 
ment may answer the ends of its existence 
very well, as a general rule, and yet fail in 
some particulars. In such case it is to be 
borne with, and corrected and made right. 
Nor is it meant that the people are to sub- 
mit to anything which requires of them 
moral wrong. They cannot submit to any 
such oppression. Submission to it, would 
be rebellion against God. This has been 
sufficiently proved under a preceding head. 
If government does not answer its designs, 



it must be reformed, and if it will not be re- 
formed, when the evil is felt by the people, 
and pointed out, and redress demanded, it 
should be annihilated and another put in its 
place. 

What, then, is meant by the duty of all 
men to submit to civil government ? 

1. All men should live in a state of socie- 
ty, and under a well regulated civil govern- 
ment. 

2. All men living under such government, 
should obey all its rightful laws. All laws 
are better obeyed than broken, which do 
not fall under one or the other of the follow- 
ing classifications. 

(1.) All such laws as would involve sin 
on our part to obey, are to be repudiated, 
for no man can be bound to sin. 

(2.) All such laws as would be of greater 
general evil to the governed, if obeyed, than 
would be the evil of disobeying them. Every 
such law should be resisted. 

All other laws should be obeyed. 

3. All men are bound to sustain govern- 
ment ; to submit to it, by rendering to it 
their proportion of support, in money, influ- 
ence and personal effort when necessary. 

II. The people are all bound to do all 
they can to render government what it 
should be, in form, character, measures and 
results, 

1= It is clear that God has not given us 
any specific form of civil polity This 
leaves room for government to be varied to 
suit the intelligence and condition of the 
people for whose good it is instituted. It 
is an undeniable fact, that some communi- 
ties of men have showed themselves too 
ignorant and degraded to be capable of self- 
government. It is a blessing to such a peo- 
ple to be well governed by another, or oth- 
ers more skilful than themselves. As every 
man is bound to do what he can, in his cir- 
cumstances, to secure good government, if 
there are a few men, or one man in the commu- 
nity above supposed, capable of governing 
for the good of the whole, it cannot be proved 
that such persons or person may not, yea, 
ought not to step forward and take the 



CHAP. IV.] 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



429 



reins of government, and administer for 
the good of all. Such government would 
be an invasion of no man's rights. All are 
bound to submit to government, and no 
man could have a better right to govern. 
As governments are instituted for the bene- 
fit of the governed, they ought to submit to 
the government of such as are capable of 
governing for the greatest good of the whole. 
The same government which would be the 
best for one people, might not answer the 
necessities of another people. Let it be re- 
marked, then, 

1. That the best form of government for 
a people, is that form which is best adapted 
to their condition, and which, in their cir- 
cumstances, will be productive of the great- 
est good to the whole. There are, no doubt, 
nations now, who could not sustain an elec- 
tive government like ours of the United 
States. For such a nation our form of 
government would not be the best, though 
it may the best in the world for us. 

2. As the tendency of power is to accumu- 
lation, and as it is more liable to be abused 
in individual hands, than in the hands of 
many, the people should always have so 
much control in giving form and direction 
to government, as they are capable of exer- 
cising for their own good. Where the 
masses are very ignorant and degraded, 
they must have less hold upon the reins of 
government in order to be governed to their 
own best good, as a whole. Where they 
are more enlightened, or where a greater 
proportion are enlightened, the power of 
government will admit of being more dif 
fused. In a country like the United States, 
where a very large majority are enlightened 
and refined, there is no danger to the gov- 
ernment, from admitting all the ignorant to 
the full rights of suffrage under our free in- 
stitutions. 

3. In an enlightened community, a repub- 
lic is, beyond all doubt, the model form of 
civil polity. In support of this no extended 
argument is necessary. A republic has its 
difficulties, and its disadvantages, but where 
the community is enlightened sufficiently to 



sustain a free government, it creates such a 
common interest in the government, throws 
open such equal facilities to all, and wakes 
up such a public spirit, as well as individ- 
ual enterprise, as to place such a people, in 
point of progress, beyond comparison with 
any of the nations living under any of the 
more concentrated and despotic forms of 
civil government. 

It has been thought by some, that repub- 
lics are necessarily unstable, and are not 
likely to stand long. It is true, there are a 
few dots on the chart of time, where repub- 
lics have been overthrown, but where there 
is one such dot, indicating where there was 
once a republic, there are hundreds of places, 
scattered over with the ruins of demolished 
thrones and dissolved kingdoms and empires. 
The republics of the old world wanted two 
things ; viz., intelligence among the masses, 
and the Christian Keligion. 

4. In a republic like the United States, a 
very great responsibility rests upon the 
governed, and the sphere of the citizen's 
duty is greatly enlarged. Every man is a 
legislator in fact, and if he is not a gover- 
nor, he is a government maker. The peo- 
ple are responsible for the character of the 
government ; its virtues, and its crimes are 
really their's. Men, under such responsibili- 
ties, ought to exercise the elective franchise 
in the fear of God, and vote with the great- 
est religious scrupulosity. 

III. The above views are sustained by 
the general declarations of the Scriptures. 

It is worthy of remark, that a free gov- 
ernment renders those Scriptures which de- 
scribe the character of civil rulers, applica- 
ble to the people, as well as those which 
refer to their own actions. The following 
texts are presented as relating to the sub- 
ject. 

Exo. xviii. 21 : " Moreover thou shalt 
provide out of all the people able men, such 
as fear God, men of truth, hating covetous- 
ness ; and place such over them to be rulers." 

This plan of government, and of judging 
the people, was suggested to Moses by 
Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses' father- 



430 



CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 



[BOOK III. 



in-law, and on this ground some may be dis 
posed to dispute its authority, but nothing 
can be gained by such a position. As Moses 
fell in with the plan, it must follow that he 
supposed that he had a warrant from God 
for it, or else, that it was his opinion that 
the people had a right to put themselves 
under a government of such form, as they 
believed best calculated to secure their in- 
terests, so that they did not violate any ex- 
press law of God, and either of these conse- 
quences is suf&cient to sustain the argument. 
Eulers then must have the following qualifi- 
cations. - 

1. " They must be able men," what we 
call men of talent. A ruler needs a sound 
mind, well informed mind. 

2. Rulers must be " men that fear God." 
And how strange it is to talk of selecting a 
man who fears God for a ruler, if he who 
rules over men is, ipso facto, a rebel against 
God? 

3. Rulers must be men that hate cove- 
tousness. These qualifications are utterly 
inconsistent with the idea that government 
is wrong in itself. 

Deut. xvii. 14, 16 : " When thou art come 
unto the land which the Lord thy God giv- 
eth thee, and shalt say I will set a king 
over me, like as the nations that are about 
me ; thou shalt in any wise set him king over 
thee, whom the Lord thy God sliall choose ; 
one from among thy brethren shalt thou set 
king over thee ; thou mayest not set a stran- 
ger over thee which is not thy brother." 

Here rules are given to the people by 
which they should be governed in the choice 
of a king. 

Exo. xxii. 28 : ** Thou shalt not curse 
the ruler of thy people." 

It may be wrong to curse any man, but 
as we are here particularly forbidden to 
curse the ruler, it follows that we owe to a 
ruler an additional respect in consequence 
of his office, and hence, to curse a ruler, is a 
higher offence than to curse a man. 

Job xxxiv. 18 : " Is it fit to say to a 
king. Thou art wicked ? and to princes, ye 
are ungodly ?" 



Prov. xxiv. 21 : " My son, fear thou tha 
Lord and the king." 

Fear is here enjoined as a matter of moral 
obligation, and not as mere worldly policy, 
for it respects both God and the king. 

Eccle. viii. 2 : " I counsel thee to keep 
the king's commandment, and that in regard 
to the oath of God." 

This text clearly involves the duty of obe- 
dience to rulers. 

1 Tim. ii. 1, 2 : "I exhort therefore, that 
first of all supplications, prayers, interces- 
sions, and giving of thanks be made for all 
men ; for kings and for all in authority." 

We are here first, required to pray for all 
men ; now, as kings are comprehended in the 
term all men, and as the Apostle enjoins 
prayer for kings and all in authority after 
enjoining prayer for all men, it follows that 
Christians are under a special obligation to 
pray for kings and rulers, aside from the 
obligation which requires them to pray for 
all men. This proves that the Bible recog- 
nizes the relation between rulers and sub- 
jects, and that, like every other authorized 
relation, it lays the parties under corres- 
ponding obligations, from which the right 
of civil government must follow as a mat- 
ter of course. 

Titus iii. 1 : " Put them in mind to be 
subject to principalities and powers, to obey 
magistrates." 

This text most clearly teaches that Chris- 
tians are under obligation to obey magis- 
trates. Now, right and obligation are al- 
ways reciprocal ; hence the obligation to 
obey magistrates, necessarily implies the 
right of magistrates to command, which is 
the very point at issue ; this argument there- 
fore must be conclusive. 

1 Peter ii. 13, 14, 17: " Submit yourselves 
to every ordinance of man for the Lord's 
sake ; whether it be to the king as supreme ; 
or to governors, as unto them that are sent 
by him for the punishment of evil doers, 
and for the praise of them that do well. 
Honor all men, love the brotherhood, honor 
the king." 

This text is too plain to need comment. 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OP MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



431 



after what has been said above. We are 
not only required to submit to the authority 
of civil rulers " for the Lord's sake," but 
the design of their appointment is shown to 
he, first, " for the punishment of evil doers," 
and secondly, " for the praise of them that 
do well." In this instance the Apostle 
clearly recognizes, not only the right of gov- 
ernment, but the right of punishment. We 
are also required to '' honor all men," upon 
the back of which we are required to " hon- 
or the king," which shows that civil rulers 
are entitled to a respect not due to other 
men, which could not be the case if the very 
holding of an office were a crime. 

2. Peter ii. 9, 10 : " The Lord knoweth 
how to deliver the godly out of temptation, 
and to reserve the unjust unto the day of 
judgment to be punished. But chiefly them 
that walk after the flesh, in the lust of un- 
cleanness, and despise government ; presump- 
tous are they, self-willed ; they are not 
afraid to speak evil of dignities." See also 
Jude 8. 

This represents the want of proper res- 
pect for government as a crime, for which 
+he offender is to be reserved unto the day 
'-idgment to be punished. 



CHAPTER Y. 

THE DUTIES WE OWE TO OUR FELLOW-BEINGS 
CONCLUDED THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, 

AS NAN. 

We now come to the last and most ex- 
tended relation, that man can sustain to his 
fellow-man. The relation which man sus- 
tains to universal humanity, like every other 
relation, involves its rights and duties pecu- 
liar to itself. We have seen humanity in 
the relation of husband and wife, then in 
the relation of parents and childreu, then in 
the relation of masters and servants, or em- 
ployers and employed, then in the relation 
of governors and governed, and now we 



reach the widest circle of human brother- 
hood, the relation of man to man. 

Several bands of human beings meet 
along the way, in life's pilgrimage, sustain- 
ing no relation to each other, beyond the 
facts that they are all the creatures of the 
same God, and have all descended from Ad- 
am and Eve. They are all strangers, they 
all belong to different nations, speak differ- 
ent languages, and wear different complex- 
ions, but it so happens that they pitch their 
tents for a night, upon the same oasis in the 
desert, and beside the same water fountain. 
Now what are the duties and obligations 
binding them in regard to each other ? Or, 
in other words, what are the rights of each, 
which the others are bound to respect ? The 
answer is, 

1. Each has a right to life, so that neither 
may take the life of his neighbor, 

2. Each has the right of property, so that 
neither may rob the other. 

3. Each has a right to liberty, so that 
neither may arrest and detain the other, but 
all must be left free to pursue their jour- 
ney. 

A brief discussion of these three points 
will close this Book, on the rights and du- 
ties of humanity, or on the morals of Chris- 
tianity. 



SECTION I, 
3Ian has an Inalienable Right to Life. 

When it is said that every man has an 
inalienable right to life, it is meant that no 
man has a right to deprive him of his life, 
uuforfeited by crime, and that he has no 
right to destroy his own life, but is bound 
to live as long as he can. 

No man has a right to take the life of his 
fellow-being, unforfeited by crime. It is not 
pretended, that in the case of the travelers 
in life's journey, above supposed, should 
one undertake to kill all the rest, it would 
not justify the others in uniting their 
strength and taking away his life, as the 
only means of saving their own. 



432 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



[book hi. 



This is what is meant, suppose the pilgrim 
to pursue his journey in peace, and harming 
no one else, no man may take his life away. 
God has guarded it. " Thou shalt not kill," 
is one of the commandments of his law. 
In addition to this command in the Deca- 
logue, God has showed his abhorrence of the 
crime involved in the destruction of the life 
of man, by the hand of his equal brother 
man, by guarding human life by the most 
awful sanctions, in the pouring out of the 
blood of the murderer, and in exclusion from 
the beatitudes of his kingdom. Gen. ix. 5, 
6 ; 1 John iii. 15. 

Murder, so called, is universally condemn- 
ed, and to prevent and suppress it, has been 
a prominent object of civil government, in 
all ages and countries. 

The murderer's own conscience is, doubt- 
less, one of the most powerful and ever-pres- 
ent witnesses to the enormity of the crime. 
While judgment lingers, an awful sound is 
in the ears of the murderer, and an oppres- 
sive load is on his heart. Conscience ever 
and anon avv^akes and excites awful fore- 
bodings of coming wrath. Blood-guilti- 
ness presses heavily on him, and clouds with 
gloom his sunshine and his shade. It glares 
upon him like a fury, and overwhelms him 
with torture and distress. Detection and 
punishment by the hand of man perpetually 
stare him in the face, and distract his mind 
with terrors. Once he could enjoy repose 
and be at rest. He can enjoy it no more. 
Thoughts of the murdered which are ever 
with him, throng his solitudes, and invest 
them with awful terrors. Darkness, silence, 
and retirement, so refreshing to the good, so 
replete with interesting ideas and tranquil 
pleasures, are to him the gates of hell and 
the anguish of despair. 

But in how many forms has real murder 
become fashionable, and lost its horror in 
public estimation, and even entitling its 
perpetrators to the highest honors, as the 
benefactors of mankind. That a concise 
view may be taken of the subject, let the 
leading forms in which the sixth command- 
ment is violated, be considered. 



1. That wailful killing of a human being, 
w^hich is regarded as murder by the com- 
mon law of all nations. On this no com- 
ment need be offered. 

2. The destruction of the unborn, with a 
view to conceal crime, and avert shame, or 
for other purposes. This is none the less a 
crime, because it is most practised among 
what are called, the refined classes of com- 
munity. 

3. Suicide, which is the willful destruc- 
tion of one's own life. Suicide was not re- 
garded as a crime by many of the ancient 
nations, but they were heathen. David 
Hume, the great infidel, was one of its more 
modern advocates. 

That suicide is a crime, may be inferred 
from the following considerations : 

(1.) It is clearly a violation of the com- 
mand, " thou shalt not kill." It is admit- 
ted that this command, in its direct appli- 
cation, refers to the killing of others, yet it 
includes the killing of one's self. To deny 
this, would involve the right to kill others, 
under some circumstances. This law is 
comprehended in the command, thou shalt 
love thy neighbor as thyself. There is then 
no violation of the law, " thou shalt not 
kill," where there is not a violation of the 
command, " thou shalt love thy neighbor 
as thyself." A man's love to himself is the 
measure of his duty to his neighbor. If 
then a man may rightfully kill himself, he 
may rightfully kill his neighbor, who is in 
the circumstances which would justify self- 
destruction. 

(2.) All examples of suicide recorded in 
the Bible, are those of bad men. The Scrip- 
tural examples of suicide are those of Saul, 
Ahithophel, and Judas. The characters of 
these men are not such as to give their ex- 
amples authority, or render them fit for im- 
itation. Saul and Judas were the worst of 
men. Ahithophel deserted his sovereign in 
affliction, and participated in a wicked 
conspiracy formed against his kingdom and 
life. Judas sold his Lord for thirty pieces 
of silver. 

(3.) Many good men of the Scriptures, 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



433 



the patriarchs and prophets, and the Apos- 
tles, endured reproach and distress, and had 
experience of manifold sufferings ; but they 
did not think proper to relieve themselves 
by suicide. 

(4.) Grod has placed us here to be the 
subjects of discipline adapted to our im- 
provement. "We are not at liberty to desert 
our post till called away by him. Men 
have no right to commit suicide to escape 
from afflictions, from shame and other evil 
consequences of their indiscretions, or from 
any class of trials. The good should live 
to improve by their afflictions, and to be 
useful ; and the wicked to repent and make 
amends to society for their crimes. 

4. Dueling is another form of murder. 
As no man has a right to take his own 
life, he can have no right to consent to its 
being taken by another. If I have not a 
right to take my own life, I have no right 
to consent that you may take it, and my 
consent gives you no right to take it. If 
then we agree to fight a duel, I attempt to 
take your life, and you attempt to take my 
life, without a right so to do on either side. 
My consenting that you may take my life, 
is equal to my taking my own life, in- 
Tolving the crime of suicide ; and my at- 
tempt to take your life is an attempt to as- 
sassinate you, and the same is true of you in 
regard to me. It is therefore certain, that 
dueling involves the double crime of suicide 
and assassination. 

5. All wars, instituted for conquest and 
plunder, are systems of wholesale murders. 
If one man has not a right to kill his neigh- 
bor, because he hates him, or for the selfish 
purpose of obtaining his money, or taking 
possession of his house and lands, the same 
man can not have the right of associating 
with himself, a thousand or ten thousand. 
and killing as many for the same or no bet- 
ter ends. No war can be justified on any 
principle which would not justify an indi- 
vidual in taking the life of a neighbor on 
the ground of the right of self-defence. 

The right of life, or the right to live, in- 
volves the right to defend life against 
28 



wicked attempts to rob us of it. Under 
the head of the right of civil government, 
those Scriptures were considered, which 
have been supposed to forbid self-defence. 
From the view there given, it will follow 
that there is no Scripture command for- 
bidding self-defence. In support of it, as a 
natural and universal right, the following 
remarks are introduced, from president 
Mahan. 

1. It is a principle of our nature abso- 
lutely universal, a principle which we pos- 
sess in common with all sentient existences, 
rational and irrational, existences capable 
of perceiving themselves the objects of vio- 
lent assaults from other beings. This fact 
none will deny. 

2. This principle differs wholly and fun- 
damentally from revenge, which is evil in- 
tentionally inflicted, after an injury real or 
supposed has been received, or inflicted, 
not at all as a means of self-protection, but 
to gratify feelings and sentiments of hate 
and ill will, which the remembrance of the 
injury excites. Eevenge, according to this 
sense of the term, is, in all circumstances 
actual or conceivable, morally v/rong and 
wholly so. 

3. All Scripture prohibitions pertaining 
to revenge, such as " avenge not your- 
selves," " resist not evil," '' be not over- 
come of evil," have no reference whatever to 
self-defence. They refer to an entirely 
distinct and opposite thing, and are wholly 
misapplied when adduced against the prin- 
ciple of self-defence. It is also very singu- 
lar that they should ever be so applied, 
when they are presented by Christ and by 
His apostles, in almost every instance, as 
literal quotations from the Old Testament 
in which the right of self-defence is ex- 
pressly sanctioned. As they stand in that 
portion of holy writ, they certainly do not 
contradict this right. How can they con- 
tradict it then, when quoted in the New 
Testament, as having authority in conse- 
quence of being found in the Old ? 

4. It follows, as a necessary consequence, 
from the universal fact above stated, that 



434 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



[book hi. 



self-defence, to wit, the repelling of force by 
force, wLen violently assaulted, is a sacred 
right of man. If the existence of a univer- 
sal principle, in all sentient beings rational 
or irrational, indicates a universal right, 
(and if this does not indicate it, nothing 
does or can do it,) then does the right un- 
der consideration pertain to man, in the 
circumstances supposed. 

5. The question, and the only one aris- 
ing out of this subject, pertaining to the 
id'.^a or law of duty, is this. What are the 
extent and limits of this right ? What is 
the law which morally binds us under the 
circumstances supposed ? I lay it down, 
as a necessary intuition of the universal in- 
telligence, that whenever a propensity ab- 
solutely universal exists, as it truly and un- 
deniably is in the present case, action in 
harmony with that propensity, within cer- 
tain limits, is lawful and right. The exists 
ence of the propensity determines the right 
itself. It is the business of the moral phi- 
losopher to determine its extent and limits. 
What, then, are the extent and limits of the 
right of self-defence ? The principle which 
I lay down as law universal on this sub- 
ject is this. Never intentionally put in 
jeopardy, for self -protect ion, higher inter- 
ests than those assailed. Any injury within 
these limits, intentionally inflicted upon an 
assailant, who unlawfully and violently as- 
saults us, is right and proper, when this is 
done strictly and exclusively, as a means of 
self-protection. This is the true and the 
only true principle." 



SECTION II. 

The Right of Property. 

The right to acquire and possess prop- 
erty, is an original right, and is inalienable. 
Property itself is alienable, but the right 
to acquire, and have and hold, is inaliena- 
ble. 

This right was conferred upon man at 
"the time of his creation, and, of course, it 



belongs to the race. God said to Adam, 
" have dominion over the fish of the sea, 
and over the fowl of the air, and over every 
living thing that moveth upon the earth." 

This gives to man a right to fish, and 
fowl, and ox, and horse, and sheep, and 
land, so far as he can get them into his 
possession, and bring them under his con- 
ti'ol, without invading any of the rights 
previously acquired by his fellow-beings. 

The right of property being so clear, it 
is only necessary to advert to the modes in 
which it is most commonly violated. 

It is not violated by such a public tax, 
as is necessary for the support of govern- 
ment. The existence of government is es- 
sential to the peaceable and safe enjoyment 
of the right of property. To tax prop- 
erty to support government, is, therefore, 
only to make property pay the expense of 
its own protection, and this may be done 
more securely and cheaper through a well 
arranged government, than by each individ- 
ual attempting to protect his own property. 
All governmental taxes, however, should be 
limited to what is for the general good, and 
to the amount which is strictly necessary. 
All beyond this point, is oppression. 

The right of property is violated in the 
following methods. 

1. By theft. This is forbidden by the 
eighth commandment. " Thou shalt not 
steal." It is not necessary to labor to 
prove the propriety of such a command, or 
to prove the evil of stealing. It is an inva- 
sion of the right of property, which, in its 
extreme aspects, is as sacred as life itself. 
A right to acquire, and have, and use prop- 
erty, is included in the right to live, for 
without it men could not live. Stealing, 
therefore, though the actual consequences 
to the injured party may be very trifling, 
is a violation of a sacred and all important 
principle. 

2. What is called robbery, is a violation 
of the right of property. It contains all 
the evil elements of stealing, with the addi- 
tional crime of personal violence, often, if 
not always, endangering life itself. 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



435 



3. The right of property is invaded by 
cheating, in all forms of dishonest deal, or 
by any method by which one man obtains 
the money or goods of another, without a 
just compensation. The honesty of traffic, 
depends upon the fact that it is reciprocal, 
or mutually beneficial to both parties. The 
forms of dishonest deal are too numerous to 
be named. 

4. The right of property is invaded, 
when one man takes advantage of another 
man's necessity. The forms of this species 
of dishonesty, are too numerous to allow of 
their being detailed. 

5. The right of property is invaded when 
a man's honest means of acquiring property 
are wrongfully impaired. This method is 
often resorted to by dishonest competitors 
in business. Any false report or slander, 
which injures a man's honest business is an 
invasion of his right of property. 

6. The right of property is virtually vio- 
lated, whenever property is misapplied or 
used for bad purposes. -This last remark 
covers a numerous class of evils, against 
which human law can provide to a very 
limited extent only, but the eye of God is 
upon them all, and he will hold every man 
to a strict account for the use he makes of 
the property he acquires. As this is a 
very important matter, the following very 
just remarks are introduced upon the sub- 
ject, from Mr. Watson. 

" Property is not disposable at the option 
of man, without respect to the rules of the 
Divine law ; and here, too, we shall per- 
ceive the feebleness of the considerations 
urged, in merely moral systems, to restrain 
prodigal and wasteful expenditure, hazard- 
ous speculations, and even the obvious evil 
of gambling. Many weighty arguments 
we grant, may be drawn against all these 
from the claims of children, and near rela- 
tions, whose interests we are bound to re 
gard, and whom we can have no right to 
expose even to the chance of being involved 
in the same ruin with ourselves. But these 
reasons can have little sway with those who 
fancy that they can keep within the verge 



of extreme danger, and who will plead their 
' natural right' to do what they will with 
their own. In cases, too, where there may 
be no children or dependent relatives, the 
individual would feel less disposed to ac- 
knowledge the force of this class of reasons, 
or think them quite inapplicable to his case. 
But Christianity enjoins ' moderation' of 
the desires, and temperance in the gratifica- 
tion of the appetites, and in the show and 
splendor of life, even where a state of opu- 
lence can command them. It has its ad- 
monitions against the ' love of money ;' 
against ' willing to be rich/ except as 
' the Lord may prosper a man' in the 
usual track and course of honest industry 
— authoritative cautions which lie directly 
against hazardous speculations ; and it 
warns such as despise them of the conse- 
quent ' temptations' and spiritual * snares' 
destructive to habits of piety, and ulti- 
mately to the soul, into which they must 
fall — considerations of vast moment, but 
peculiar to itself, and quite out of the range 
of those moral systems which have no re- 
spect to its authority. Against gambling, 
in its most innocent forms, it sets its injunc- 
tion, ' Kedeeming the time ;' and in its 
more aggravated cases, it opposes to it not 
only the above considerations, as it springs 
from an unhallowed ' love of money ;' but 
the whole of that spirit and temper which 
it makes to be obligatory upon us, and 
which those evil and often diabolical ex- 
citements, produced by this habit, so fear- 
fully violate. Above all, it makes prop- 
erty a trust, to be employed under the rules 
prescribed by Him who, as Sovereign Pro- 
prietor, has deposited it with us, which 
rules require its use certainly (for the cov- 
etous are excluded from the kingdom of 
God ;) but its use, first, for the supply of 
our wants, according to our station, with 
moderation ; then, as a provision for chil- 
dren, and dependent relatives ; finally, for 
purposes of charity and religion, in which 
' grace,' as before stated, it requires us ' to 
abound ;' and it enforces all these by plac- 
ing us under the responsibility of account- 



436 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. [BOOK III. 



iug to God himself, in person, for the abuse 
or neglect of this trust, at the general judg- 
ment." 



SECTION III. 
Man's Right to Liberty. 

Liberty is the natural right of every 
human being and no human being can be 
rightfully deprived of it, only so far as 
his liberty becomes dangerous to the safety 
and well being of others. That a criminal, 
who lives by plundering others may be right- 
fully deprived of his liberty, and that a mad 
man may be confined, is admitted ; but that 
rational and innocent men and women can be 
rightfully deprived of their liberty, and held 
in bondage, under any pretence, is denied. 
This opens the question of chattel slavery ; 
to a consideration of it shall this closing 
section on the rights of humanity, and the 
duties of man, to man be devoted. Slavery 
violates all the rights of humanity, as will 
be made to appear, as it also intercepts 
every path of duty which the Creator has 
marked out, regarding God and man. 

Before opening the argument, it is proper 
to define what is meant by slavery. 

By slavery is meant, the system which 
reduces man to a chattel, and buys and 
sells him, and subjects him to the liabili- 
ties of other property, claiming the same 
right of property in the offspring by virtue 
of the right previously asserted to the pa- 
rent. This is . the system of American 
Slavery, and against it and all other slavery 
involving the same principles, the following 
arguments are directed. 

Slavery consisting in the right of prop- 
erty in man, with the usual incidents of 
that right must be morally wrong, and sin 
in itself, for the following reasons. 

T. Slavery is inconsistent with man's ac- 
countability to God as a subject of his 
moral government. 

" Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and 
with all thy mind, and with all thy 



strength." This commandment clearly lays 
such a claim to the affections of the heart, 
and demands such an entire devotion of the 
soul {PsuJcee Life) as gives tone to, and con- 
trols the actions ; it therefore contains the 
foundation of absolute obedience to God. 
This is seen in the expression, " with all 
thy strength." This requires a consecra- 
tion of the physical powers in obedience to 
God, under the control of the affections of 
the heart. 

There is but one question more to settle, 
which is, can these afiections and actions 
exist in the same heart and life, at the 
same time with those affections and actions 
which are consonant with the relation of a 
piece of property to its owner, a personal 
chattel to a chattel holder ? Slavery may 
say what it pleases ; common sense says 
no, 

To be under obligation to obey God, 
there must exist the right and power of 
devoting our lives to God, for there can be 
no obligation where there is not both right 
and poiver to respond to that obligation. 
But the slave, who is the property of man, 
has not and cannot have the power of de- 
voting his life to God, because his life is 
not at his ov/n disposal, according to the 
dictates of his own understanding of right ; 
he cannot do what God requires, but must 
do what men require, and wicked men too, 
who fear not God and regard not his law. 
Should it be said that slave owners do not 
interfere with the slave's right to obey God, 
and liberty of conscience, every one must 
know that such an assumption would be 
false, for the extension of the right to 
slaves, to obey God, as free men professing 
the religion of the Bible deem it their duty 
to obey God, would overthrow the system 
of slavery. 

Further, if it were admitted that slave 
owners grant their slaves the privilege of 
obeying God, it would not relieve the diffi- 
culty, for it would still follow that the sys- 
tem of property in man, takes away from 
the human chattel the right to obey God, 
and puts it into the hand of the owner, who 



CHAP, y.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO NAN, AS MAN. 



437 



lias tlie power to close up before the chatel- 
ized traveler to eternity, the path of obe- 
dience, and with authority direct his foot- 
steps in the way of sin and death. Man 
cannot sustain the relation of property to 
man, without an infraction of the relation 
that he sustains to God, and of the rights 
and powers essential to the conformity of 
his affections and actions to this relation, 
hence, the right of property in man cannot 
exist. 

The assumption of the relation of a chat- 
tel holder to a subject of God's moral gov- 
ernment, is to step in between such subject 
and God, and disannul man's relation to his 
Maker, and absolve him from his allegiance 
to Jehovah's throne. 

II. Slavery conflicts with man's specific 
duties, required in the Scriptures. 

It is the duty of all intelligent heings to 
use all the means within their reach to ac- 
quire a knowledge of God and his will. To 
remain ignorant of God and his will concern- 
ing us through neglect of the means within 
our reach, is of itself a sin of the darkest 
shade. But from what source is the knowl- 
edge of God to be derived ? The answer is 
plain, the Scriptures. " To the law and 
the testimony ; if they speak not according 
to this word it is because there is no light 
in them." 

It is clear that if the Scriptures are an 
expression of the mind of God, and have 
been inspired by his spirit, all must possess 
a common right of direct access to this foun- 
tain of moral light. 

But God has made it our duty to know 
him, and to know him through this medium. 

Luke xvi. 29 : " They have Moses and 
the prophets ; let them hear them." 

John V. 39 : " Search the Scriptures, for 
in them ye think ye have eternal life." 

Acts xvii. 11 : " These were more noble 
than those in Thessalonica, in that they re- 
ceived the word with all readiness of mind 
and searched the Scriptures daily, whether 
these things were so." 

The right and duty of all men to possess 
themselves of the Scriptures, and to read and 



study the same being established, it only re- 
mains to show that slavery is of necessity 
and forever inimical to this right and duty ; 
taking away the one, and nullifying the oth- 
er. The right of property in man cannot 
exist co-ordinate with the right and obliga- 
tion to " search the Scripture's." 

1. The right and obligation to search the 
Scriptures necessarily includes the right of 
acquiring property, first in money or money's 
value with which to procure the Scriptures 
to be read : and secondly, in the Scriptures, 
which will overthrow the whole system of 
slavery. This view shows that the slave, ar, ^ 
property, cannot possess, in his own right, 
a Bible or the value of a Bible in any form, 
and, therefore, the command of God to 
" search the Scriptures," and the assumed 
right of property in man, are totally and 
irreconcilably opposed to each other, so that 
while God requires all men to search the 
Scriptures, no man can rightfully be reduced 
to a chattel. With this agrees the law of 
slavery which says that a slave '^ can do 
nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any- 
thing but what must belong to their mas- 
ter." 

2. The right and obligation to search the 
Scriptures, includes the right to devote suffi- 
cient time to the pursuits of religious knowl- 
edge. But the right of property in a man 
includes the right to monopolize and dispose 
of his whole time, so that he cannot possess 
the right of devoting his time or any part 
of it to the study of the Scriptures, from 
which it follows again that the right of 
slavery is at war with the duties which God 
has commanded. If the right of property 
in man includes the right of controling his 
time, it conflicts with duties which God re- 
quires and must be wrong ; and if it does 
not give the master the right to control the 
time of the slave, the whole practical system 
of slavery is a violation of right. 

In showing that slavery conflicts with 
certain specified duties, it is proper to no- 
tice the duty of publicly worshipping God. 
On this point we will quote but one text. 

Heb. X. 25 : " Not forsaking the assem- 



438 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. [BOOK III. 



bling of yourselves together, as the manner 
of some is. " This text clearly teaches the 
duty of meeting together in Christian assem- 
bles for religious purposes, while slavery de- 
clares that the right of slaves so to assem- 
ble cannot be admitted with safety to the 
system. 

To conclude this argument, we say that 
to grant the slaves the simple right of obey- 
ing the Gospel, by attending to all its de- 
votional and social duties as they are com- 
manded and understood by Christians gen- 
erally, would overthrow the entire system. 

III. Slavery subverts the marriage in- 
stitution, and annuls the relation of husband 
and wife. 

Man is a social being, and has received a 
social nature from the hand which formed 
him ; which seeks intercourse, sympathy, 
and reciprocal enjoyments from kindred 
spirits. The various relations into which 
we are thrown by the current of our social 
nature, have been provided for by God in 
his word, where he has prescribed the cir- 
cumstances, conditions and obligations of 
our social and domestic relations, and has 
thrown around them the protection of his 
law. 

We will commence with the institution 
of marriage. This of course was provided 
for by the hand of God when he originally 
created man, and is the first institution in 
the chain of social relations ; first in the 
order of nature, and first in the order of the 
positive institutions of the divine law. 

Matt. xix. 4-6 : " Have ye not read 
that he which made them at the beginning, 
made them male and female, and said. For 
this cause shall a man leave father and 
mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they 
twain shall be one flesh ? Wlierefore they 
are no more twain but one flesh? what 
therefore God hath joined together let no 
man put asunder. " 

Heb. xiii. 4 : "Marriage is honorable in 
all, and the bed undefiled ; but whoremon- 
gers and adulterers God will judge. " 

On these texts it may be remarked, that 
God obviously designed marriage for all 



nations, races and classes of men. To say 
that God does not require marriage on the 
part of the African race, would be to say 
that he designs the extinction of the race, 
for all such perpetuation of the race out of 
wedlock is condemned and denounced by 
God himself. We are now prepared to show 
wherein slavery conflicts with the institu- 
tion, and rights and obligations of marri- 
age. 

1. The right of property in man is incon- 
sistent with the rights of the parties w^ho 
lawfully enter into the marriage relation. 

The husband has a monopoly of right in 
his wife. A wife belongs to her husband, 
in a sense which renders it impossible that 
she should be the property of another at the 
same time ; if she is the wife of one, she 
cannot be the property of another ; if she is 
the property of one she cannot be the wife 
of another. It is impossible from the na- 
ture of the two things that a woman should 
hold out the attributes of a wife to one man, 
and the attributes of property to another, 
at the same time. The husband has an ex- 
clusive right in his wife, and the owner has 
an exclusive right in his property ; hence, 
a woman cannot sustain the relation of a 
wife to one man, and the relation of proper- 
ty to another. In the same manner the 
rights of the wife forever forbid the right of 
property in the husband. The man is not 
alone in securing rights to himself when he 
enters into the marriage relation ; corres- 
ponding to his rights are the rights of the 
wdfe ; if they are not in every respect the 
same, they are nevertheless equal in number 
and importance. The husband is bound no 
less to devote himself for the promotion of 
the happiness of the wife than she is to pro- 
mote his happiness. This right of the wife 
to the love, the protection, the support, and 
entire devotedness of the husband to promote 
her happiness must forever preclude the 
right of property to such husband vesting 
itself in the hands of another. 

2. The right of property in man is incon- 
sistent with the obligations resting upon the 
parties to the marriage relations. Eights 



CHAP. Y.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



4S9 



and obligations are always reciprocal ; hence, 
in treating of the rights of the parties, the 
corresponding obligations have been im- 
plied, but we wish to bring them out a little 
more distinctly. The right of the husband 
to the due regard and proper submission of 
the wife, involves an obligation on her part 
to render these things ; the right of the wife 
to the love and protection of the husband, 
involves an obligation on his part to love 
and protect her. We will now present a 
few plain declarations of Scripture on this 
subject, and see how effectually they over- 
throw the assumed right of property in 
man. 

1. Cor. vii. 2 : " Nevertheless, to avoid 
fornication, let every man have his own 
wife, and let every woman have her own 
husband. " 

The system of property in man, making 
them personal chattels, to be bought and 
sold in the market, cannot be reconciled 
with the above text. To let every man 
have his own wife, and every woman her 
own husband, in the apostle's sense, would 
overthrow the whole system of slavery. 

Eph. V. 21, 23 : " Wives submit your- 
selves unto you own husbands, as unto the 
Lord. For the husband is the head of the 
wife, even as Christ is the head of the 
church : and he is the Saviour of the body. " 
Can wives, who are the personal chattels 
of men not their husbands, comply with the 
above text ? When the husband is sent to 
one market and the wife to another, can the 
wife obey the Scriptures? Can the wife 
who is in the power, the absolute power of 
a man who is not her husband, and who can 
enforce his will in all things without let or 
hindrance by flattery, bribes, strength, pris- 
ons, whips and tortures ; can such a wife 
submit herself to her husband as unto the 
Lord ? and can a husband, who is under the 
same absolute control of another, be the 
head of such a wife, as Christ is the head of 
the church ? Answer, common sense ! 

1. Cor. vii. 10 : '' And unto the married 
I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not 
the wife depart from her husband ? " 



Eph. V. 28, 29 : " So ought men to love 
their wives as their own bodies. He that 
loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man 
ever yet hated his own flesh ; but nourish- 
eth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the 
church ?" 

1. Peter iii. 7 : " Likewise, ye hus- 
bands, dwell with them according to know- 
ledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto 
the weaker vessel, and as being heirs to- 
gether of the grace of life ; that your pray- 
ers be not hindered. " 

How can a man, who may be sold and 
driven away at any moment, be under obli- 
gation to dwell with his wife ? We will not 
multiply quotations or remarks ; enough 
has been said to show that slavery and the 
marriage institution cannot exist together. 
Slavery takes away the power of the wife to 
preserve her own purity, and this is true of 
married and unmarried females. 

To settle the question, we say that matri- 
mony exists among slaves or it does not. 
The one or the other of these positions must 
be true. Which is true, we care not, so far 
as this argument is concerned. 

1. If matrimony does exist in moral right 
among slaves, the parties are joined togeth- 
er by God, and Christ says, " what God 
hath joined together, let not man put asun- 
der. " But slavery does sunder them, and 
the right of property includes the right of 
sundering them. If therefore slaves are 
married in moral right, slavery is guilty of 
parting those whom God had joined togeth- 
er, and drags after it the crime of adultery. 
The slave system separates the parties and 
joins them in other connections, so that 
within a few years the same man may have 
several wives, and the same woman several 
husbands, and all living at the same time. 

2. If slaves are not married in moral 
right, as they are not and cannot be in the 
eyes of the civil law, slavery stands charged 
with breaking up this heaven appointed in- 
stitution, and of involving the slave popula- 
tion in the crime of general whoredom. 
There is so far as we can see, no way to es- 
cape these conclusions ; if the advocate oi 



440 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. [BOOK III. 



slavery allows that slaves are brought with- 
in the marriage institution, he assumes that 
the power to separate those whom God hath 
joined together can rightfully exist ; a thing, 
in our view, impossible. If he admits that 
slaves are not "brought within the marriage 
institution, he assumes the rightfulness of 
general sexual intercourse without the bans 
of matrimony. Such is slavery, consistin 
in the assumed right of property in human 
beings, wherever it is found, in the church 
or out of the church. We speak as to wise 
men ; judge of what we say. 

lY. Slavery subverts the relation of pa- 
rents and children. 

That there are rights and obligations con- 
nected with this relation, around which God 
has thrown the protection of his law, armed 
with the arrows of his lightnings, and the 
voice of his thunders, cannot be denied ; and 
that slavery disregards them and tramples 
them under foot, if not admitted shall be 
proved. 

When God descended upon Mount Sinai 
and gave his law amid the dreadful light- 
nings that blazed and glared, and shot their 
fiery arrows athwart the smoke and gloom 
that mantled the Eternal upon the mount, 
and amid the thunders that bellowed terrors 
and pom^ed the voice of condemnation in the 
ear of sin ; He then wrote with his own 
finger upon a table of stone, as the fifth of 
the ten commandments, the following words : 
" Honor thy father and mother, that thy daj^s 
may be long upon the land which the Lord 
thy God giveth thee.' 

The duty of the child to honor his father 
and mother, clearly implies the obligation 
of the parents so to teach and so to behave 
towards the child, as is calculated to inspire 
the feelings and write upon the heart of the 
child what God wrote in the book of his 
law. This sentiment is clearly brought out 
in the comment of St. Paul. 

The duties of parents and children have 
been exhibited in a preceding chapter, to 
which the reader is referred. 

1. Can parents, who are subject to all the 
liabilities of property, and whose children 



are also property in the same full sense, 
bring up their children in the nurture and 
admonition of the Lord ? This cannot be 
pretended. 

2. Can children who are " personal chat- 
tels to all intents and purposes and con- 
structions whatsoever," honor their father's 
and mothers ? Can they " obey their pa- 
rents in the Lord ?" Most certainly not. 

Y. Slavery is man-stealing. 

It would be a waste of time to attempt 
to prove that man-stealing is a crime. It 
is universally admitted that all stealing is 
wrong, and it follows that man stealing is 
the most sinful of all theft. It cannot be 
maintained that to steal the horse under 
the rider would be a sin, while to steal the 
rider off the horse would be a justifiable 
act. 

That man stealing is condemned in the 
Bible will not be denied. 

Exo. xxi. 16 : " He that stealeth a man 
and seileth him, or if he be found in his hand, 
shall surely be put to death." 

St. Paul tells us, 1 Tim. i. 10, that the 
law of God " is made for men stealers." 

The only question about which there can 
be any dispute is this ; is American Slave- 
ry, as it now exists, man-stealing ? 

1. American Slavery had its origin in 
man-stealing. 

(1.) The facts, as generally understood, 
are such as to stamp the whole business of 
the foreign slave trade with the odious name 
of man-stealing. No matter who was en- 
gaged in it, saint or devil, it was neverthe- 
less man-stealing. The business commenced 
by stealing such persons as they could catch 
along the coast, and force away from coun- 
try, home and friends, to live, suffer and die, 
in bondage among strangers. When the 
increasing market could not be supplied in 
this way, other means were resorted to. The 
kidnappers would laud for purposes of trade, 
and while trading, would pour out to their 
unsuspecting customers the intoxicating 
drink, who, not being acquainted with the 
power of ardent spirits, would soon become 
helpless, and then while drunk the pale-faced 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



441 



I demons would secure them. When they 
awoke from their drunkenness, they found 
themselves, not like Noah under the protec- 
tion of affectionate sous, but in chains and 
in the hell of the slave ship. But at last, 
to supply the increasing demand, war was 
resorted to, which was no less man-stealing. 
The wars, it should be understood, were 
commenced for the express purpose of ob- 
taining slaves,' hence, it was stealing on a 
larger scale. If two men go and take one, 
it is stealing ; if ten go and take five, it 
is stealing ; if one hundred go and take 
fifty, it is stealing ; and if one thousand go 
and take five hundred, it is no less man- 
stealing. 

(2.) The law of our country deems it man- 
stealing. It is pronounced piracy, and pun- 
ished by death by the laws of the United 
States. It is no more morally wrong now, 
than when it was tolerated : hence, it was 
always wrong. 

2. The present race or generation of 
slaves can be held by no better title or au- 
thority than that by which their stolen fath- 
ers and mothers were held. They were 
originally stolen, and, of course there was 
no valid title to them ; if, therefore, there is- 
now a title to those bondmen and bond- 
women, it has been obtained or originated 
since their fathers and mothers were stolen. 
We demand at what period in the dark his- 
tory of slavery, this supposed title to these 
human beings began to exist. As there was 
no title at first, they being stolen, it follows 
that there can be no title now, that they are 
stolen persons still, unless it can be shown 
when, under what circumstances, and upon 
what principles the title originated, and be- 
gan to exist. 

By the law of Slavery, the condition of 
the offspring follows the condition of the 
mother. Let us then suppose what is the 
fact in the case, — some men-stealers, for 
whom the law of God was made, went to 
Africa, and stole a helpless female. Had he 
any right or title to her ? Certainly not. 
The next step in this infamous business was, 
the man thief sold this stolen female to a 



Southern planter. Had the planter any ti- 
tle to her ? Certainly not ; for he could 
have none only what he bought ; and he 
could buy none only what the thief had to 
sell ; and he had no title to sell, and there- 
fore he could sell none ; and therefore the 
planter could buy none of him ; and there- 
fore the planter could have no title. This 
is all just as certain as it is that one man 
cannot communicate to another what he has 
not. As the thief had no title to his stolen 
victim, he could communicate no title to the 
man to whom he sold. 

The third step in the progress of slavery 
is, this enslaved female had an offspring in 
her bonds. Had the planter, who held her 
without title, a title to her child as his prop- 
erty ? Slavery itself does not pretend to 
any title to the children which is not found- 
ed upon a supposed title to the mother ; 
hence, as there was no title to the mother, 
there can be none to the child. As the 
mother was a stolen person in his hands, so 
is the child a stolen person in his hands 
if he retains it as his property. Slavery, 
therefore, is man-stealing, and must remain 
man-stealing, so long as it shall be contin- 
ued. 

It can make no difference in moral prin- 
ciple, from what particular place we steal a 
human being, whether from Africa or in 
America. Now, it appears, from the boast- 
ed chart of the nation's rights, that every 
child, born in this land, has an inalienable 
right to liberty, as much so as children now 
born in Africa or in any other country. 
Where, then, is the difference in moral prin- 
ciple, whether we go to Africa and take a 
child, and bring it here for a slave, or take 
one born here ? The child, born of the en- 
slaved mother in South Carolina, has the 
same inalienable right to liberty, the gift of 
God, as the child born in Africa. Where 
is the justice ? Wliere is the consistency ? 
If the law of the nation, which declares that 
he who brings children from Africa to make 
slaves of them, shall be hanged as a pirate 
upon the high seas, be right, than he who 
takes children born in this land, and holds 



442 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



[book III. 



them as property and as slaves, ought to 
be hanged as a land pirate ; for the one has 
the same inalienable right to liberty as the 
other. 

To invalidate these arguments, we must 
deny the truth of the Declaration of Amer 
lean Independence, we must disprove the 
imity of human nature, that " God has made 
of one blood all nations of men," equal in 
natural rights ; and we must falsify the uni- 
versal conviction of mankind, which each 
feels, that he was born free, and has a rig^ht 
to himself. 

We will close this argument by saying 
that American Slavery is essentially man- 
stealing; that the Bible condemns man- 
stealing, and therefore the Bible condemns 
slavery. 

YI. The Bible condemns Slavery speci 
fically by condemning the traffic in human 
beings. 

Deut. xxiv. 1 : " If a man be found steal- 
ing any of his brethren of the children of 
Israel, and maketh merchandize of him, 
or selleth him ; then that thief shall die ; 
and thou shalt put evil away from among 
you." 

This text most clearly condemns, not only 
the act of stealing men, but the act of ma- 
king merchandize of men. The principle 
of traffic in human beings is condemned. 
There is only one point on which the advo- 
cate of slavery can hang an objection and 
that is the fact that it simply condemns, 
making merchandise of the children of Is- 
rael. Tliis is fully answered by the re- 
mark that Israel after the flesh, cannot be 
more sacred in the eye of God, than Israel, 
after the Spirit. If it was wrong to make 
merchandise of a Jew, because he was a 
Jew, it must be wrong to make merchan- 
dise of a Christian, because he is a Chris- 
tian. 

Chap. xxi. 14 : " And it shall be, if thou 
have no delight in her, then thou shalt let 
her go whither she will ; but thou shalt not 
sell her for money, thou shalt not make mer- 
chandise of her." 

This is spoken of a female captive taken 



in war, it fully condemns the idea of selling 
human beings. 

Amos ii. 6 : " Thus saith the Lord ; For 
three transgressions of Israel, and for four, 
I will not turn away the punislunent there- 
of ; because they sold the righteous for sil- 
ver, and the poor for a pair of shoes." 

On this text it may be remarked. 

1. The slaves are often righteous, so that 
it is true to the very letter, that the right- 
eous are sold for silver. 

2. The slaves are all poor and are often 
bartered and gambled away for a conside- 
ration as small as a pair of shoes. 

Zech. xi. 4, 5 : " Thus saith the Lord my 
God ; Feed the flock of the slaughter, whose 
possessors slay them, and hold themselves 
not guilty : and they that sell them say. 
Blessed be the Lord ; for I am rich : and 
their own shepherds pity them not." 

If there was ever a trae picture, this is a 
true picture of slavery. The members of 
the flock of Jesus Christ are sold, " and they 
that sell them say blessed be the Lord, for I 
am rich ; and their own shepherds pity them 
not." 

Joel iii. 3 : " And they have cast lots for 
my people ; and have given a boy for a har- 
lot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might 
drink." 

That every crime here condemned is part 
and parcel of American Slavery, cannot be 
denied. The right of property in man is 
the foundation of these crimes. How often 
are slaves exchanged one for another, so that 
it is literally true that a boy is given for a 
harlot. Again, how often is it the case in 
their gambling and drinking revels, that 
slaveholders pawn their servants for their 
bills, or gamble them away, so that it is lit- 
erally true that a girl is sold for wine that 
they may drink. 

In concluding this argument, two things 
are to be noticed. 

1. The Bible, as has been shown, clearly 
condemns the traffic in human beings. 

2. American slavery assumes the right 
of buying and selling human beings as per- 
sonal chatties. 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OP MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



443 



From the above propositions it follows 
that the Bible condemns slavery. 

VII. Slavery is involuntary servitude, 
which the Bible condemns. The only ques- 
tion that needs to be settled in this argu- 
ment, is the wrong of forcing one man to 
serve another against his will. We know 
of no Scriptures, which, by any fair con- 
struction can be made to justify compulsory 
service. But we will quote a few texts 
which, in our own mind, condemn it. 

Deut. xxiii. 15, 16 : " Thou shalt not de- 
liver unto his master the servant which is 
escaped from his master unto thee ; He 
shall dwell with thee, even among you, in 
that place which he shall choose in one of 
thy gates, where it liketh him best ; thou 
shalt not oppress him." 

This text most clearly condemns involun- 
tary service, for it most clearly justifies the 
servant in leaving his master and protects 
him in it against the pursuits of his master, 
and even forbids the people among whom he 
may go to deliver him up. It appears from 
this text that there was such a thing as in 
voluntary servitude, and in this text it is 
effectually condemned. It is clear that the 
Jews were forbidden" to compel service 
against the will of the servant. This will 
appear still more certain from another text. 
This subject is treated at large by the pro- 
phet, and to save the reader the trouble of 
turning to the Bible, while reading this ar- 
gument, we quote the prophet at length. 

Jer. xxxiv. 6 : " Then Jeremiah the pro- 
phet spake all these words unto Zedekiah 
king of Judah in Jerusalem : 

" 7. When the king of Babylon's army 
fought against Jerusalem, and against all 
the cities of Judah that were left, against 
Lachish, and Against Azekah ; for these 
defenced cities remained of the cities of Ju- 
dah. 

" 8. This is the word that came unto Jere- 
miah from the Lord, after that the king 
Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the 
people which were at Jerusalem, to pro- 
claim liberty unto them : 

9. That every man should let his man 



servant, being a Hebrew or a Hebrewess, 
go free ; that none should serve himself of 
them ; and to wit, of a Jew his brother. 

" 10. Now when all the princes and all the 
people, which had entered into the covenant, 
heard that every one should let his man ser- 
vant, and every one his maid servant, go 
free that none should serve themselves of 
them any more, then they obeyed, and let 
them go. 

" 11. But afterwards they turned and 
caused the servants and hand maids, whom 
they had let go free, to return, and brought 
them into subjection for servants and for 
hand maids. 

" 12. Therefore the word of the Lord came 
to Jeremiah, from the Lord, saying, 

" 13. Thus saith the Lord, the God of Is- 
rael ; I made a covenant with your fathers 
in the day that I brought them forth out of 
the house of bondmen, saying, 

" 14. At the end of seven years let ye go 
every man his brother a Hebrew, which 
hath been sold unto thee ; and wlien he hath 
served thee six years, thou shalt let him go 
free from thee : but your fathers hearkened 
not unto me, neither inclined their ear. 

" 15. And ye were now turned, and had 
done right in my sight, in proclaiming lib- 
erty every man to his neighbor ; and ye 
had made a covenant before me in the house 
which is called by my name : 

" 16. But ye turned and polluted my name, 
and caused every man his servant, and every 
man his hand maid, whom he had set at 
liberty at their pleasure, to return, and 
brought them into subjection, to be unto 
you for servants and for hand maids. 

"17. Therefore, thus saith the Lord ; ye 
have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming 
liberty every one to his brother, and every 
man to his neighbor : behold, I proclaim a 
liberty for you, saith the Lord, to the sword, 
to the pestilence, and to the famine ; and I 
will make you to be removed unto all the 
kingdoms of the earth." 

The fourteenth verse speaks of being sold 
for seven years, but it is obvious the price 
for which a man was sold was his own, and 



444 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



[book III. 



went into his own pocket, for the benefit of 
Ms family, or at most to pay his debts, the 
amount of which he had previously enjoyed 
and consumed. What is here called selling, 
was obviously nothing more than a contract 
for service with pay in advance ; and hence 
the law was like our statute of limitation. 
It forbade men to make a contract for ser- 
vice for more than seven years. The seven 
years' service was voluntary, because agreed 
upon by the parties, and paid for in advance ; 
but when they kept the servant beyond 
that time, it became involuntary, and God 
condemned it, and punished them for it. 

Isa. Iviii. 6 : "Is not this the fast, that I 
have chosen ? to loose the bands of wicked- 
ness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let 
the oppressed go free ?" 

The expression, "let the oppressed go 
free," is a full condemnation of involuntary 
servitude. To compel any man to serve an- 
other against his will, who is out of his mi- 
nority and uncondemned for crime, is to 
oppress him ; and the command to let the 
oppressed go free, condemns such forced 
service. 

American Slavery is a system of force 
and violence, and cannot be maintained for 
a day, only by a constant war upon the 
very life of the slaves. For all this there 
is no warrant in the Bible, but much 
against it. Involuntary service must be 
wrong, from the fact that the violence nec- 
essary to maintain it is wrong. Whips for 
the naked back, thumb-screws, chains, pris- 
ons, and other modes of torture, to subdue 
persons unconvicted of crime, have no war- 
rant in the Gospel, and cannot be justified, 
only upon a principle which will justify 
every species of violence men may choose 
to practice one upon another. 

YIII. Slavery is a work without wages, 
which is condemned in the Bible. 

Deut, xxiv. 14, 15 : " Thou shalt not op- 
press a hired servant that is poor and needy, 
whether he be of thy brethren or of thy 
strangers that be in thy land within thy 
gates. At his day thou shalt give him his 
hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it ; 



for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it ; 
lest he cry against thee unto the Lord, and 
it be sin unto thee." 

It may be said that this text does not 
meet the case, because it speaks of hired 
servants, but this cannot alter the principle 
involved. The text condemns the act of 
withholding what is a man's due for his la- 
bor, and this every slaveholder does. One 
man voluntarily goes to work with the ex- 
pectation of wages, while the employer 
seizes upon another and compels him to 
work, nolens volens. We ask is not the 
man who is compelled to work as much en- 
titled to pay as he who works voluntarily ? 
Certainly he is. This is kept back, and in 
this the slave is oppressed. 

Jer. xxii. 13, 14 : " Woe unto him that 
buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and 
his chambers by wrong; that useth his 
neighbor's service without wages, and giv- 
eth him not for his work ; that saith, I wiU 
build me a wide house and large cham- 
bers, and cutteth him out windows ; and it 
is ceiled with cedar, and painted with ver- 
milion. " 

This most certainly meets the case exact- 
ly ; nothing is said about hiring men, but 
simply using their service without wages, 
which every slaveholder does. Men are 
here absolutely forbidden to use their neigh- 
bor's service without wages, and as slavery 
is a system of work without wages, it is 
here forbidden. 

Hab. ii. 9, 10, 11, 12 : " Woe to him 
that coveteth an evil covetousness to his 
house, that he may set his nest on high, that 
he may be delivered from the power of evil ! 
Thou hast consulted shame to thy house by 
cutting off many people, and hast sinned 
against thy soul. For the stone shall cry 
out of the wall, and the beam out of the 
timber shall answer it. Woe to him that 
buildeth a town with blood, and establisheth 
a city by iniquity." 

Mai. iii. 5 : " And I will come near to 
your to judgment : and I will be a swift 
witness against the sorcerers, and against 
adulterers, and against false swearers, and 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN", AS MAN. 



445 



against tliose who oppress the hireling in 
his wages, the widow and the fatherless, and 
that turn aside the stranger from his right, 
and fear not me saith the Lord of hosts. " 

James v. 4 : " Behold, the hire of the 
laborers which have reaped down yom- 
fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, 
crieth ; and the cries of them which have 
reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord 
of Sabaoth. " 

The above texts are sufScient to prove 
that the Bible forbids one class of men to 
Tise the labor of another class, without pay- 
ing them for their work, and in forbidding 
this, it forbids slavery. Some may say that 
slaves are paid in food and raiment. These 
are bestowed only so far as they promote 
the master's interest, and they are not wages 
any more than the oats a man feeds his horse. 

IX. Slavery is oppression which the 
Scriptures condemn. 

Two points are to be settled, viz : that 
slavery is identical with oppression, and 
how the Bible treats oppression. 

What is oppression ? According to Dr. 
Webster, oppression is " the imposition of 
nnreasonable burdens, either in taxes or ser- 
vice. " An oppressor, according to the 
same authority, is " one that imposes unjust 
burdens on others ; one that harrasses oth- 
ers, with unjust laws or unreasonable severi- 
ty. " This is a life like picture of slavery 
and slaveholders. It must be the extreme 
of oppression. For one man, because he 
has the power so to do, to compel his neigh- 
bor to work for him twenty-five days in a 
year, without his consent, would be oppres- 
sion, and will it not be oppression to com- 
pel him to work the whole year ? If slave- 
ry be not oppression, then may an evil be 
changed to a virtue by increasing it in mag- 
nitude. To compel a man to work without 
wages every tenth year of his life, would be 
oppression by universal consent, but to com- 
pel him to work life-long, commencing his 
toils at the misty dawn of existence, and 
closing them amid the gathering shadows of 
its dark going down, is no oppression 
According to this logic, to rob a man of a 



part of his labor would be wrong, but to 
take the whole would make it right ! To 
rob a man of a part of his time, would be a 
crime, but to rob him of all his time, of 
himself, his head and heart, his body and 
limbs, his mind and will, and all he can do, 
possess and acquire, renders it an act of 
righteousness 1 

But the Bible will settle the question of 
opi3ression. 

Ex. iii. 9 : " Now therefore, behold, the 
cry of the children of Israel is come unto 
me : and I have also seen the oppression 
wherewith the Egyptians oppress them." 

What then did the Egyptians do to the 
Israelites ? They compelled them to work 
for the government. 

Here we have the history of the matter, 
as follows : — Ex. i. 8-11. " Now there 
arose up a new king over Egypt, which 
knew not Joseph. And he said unto his 
people, Behold, the people of the children of 
Israel are more and mightier than we : 
Come on, let us deal wisely with them ; lest 
they multiply, and it come to pass, that, 
when there falleth out any war, they join 
also unto our enemies, and fight against us, 
and so get them up out of the land. There- 
fore they did set over them task-masters, to 
afiiict them with their burdens. And they 
built for Pharaoh treasure-cities, Pithom 
and Eaamses." 

This was oppression which awakened the 
sympathies of Jehovah, and brought out the 
thickest and heaviest of his thunders. Yet 
he bore it longer tha,n American Slavery 
has existed. But what was there in that 
more enormous than American Slavery ? 

Lev. XXV. 17 : Ye shall not therefore op- 
press one another ; but thou shalt fear thy 
God : for I am the Lord thy God. " 

Here oppression is not only forbidden, 
but it is done in a manner which implies 
that it is inconsistent with the fear, of God. 

Pent, xxiii. 15, 16 : Thou shalt not de- 
liver unto his master the servant which i- 
escaped from his master unto thee : He 
shall dwell with thee, even among you, in 
that place which he shall choose in one of 



446 



THE DUTIES OP MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. [BOOK III. 



thy gates, where it liketh him best : thou 
shalt not oppress him." This clearly for- 
bids the oppression of a self emancipated 
servant. 

Deut. xxiv. 14 : Thou shalt not oppress 
a hired servant that is poor and needy, 
whether he he of thy brethren, or of thy 
strangers that are in thy land within thy 



Psal. s. 17, 18 : " Lord, thou hast heard 
the desire of the humble, thou wilt prepare 
their heart, thou wilt cause thine ear to 
hear. To judge the fatherless and the op- 
piessed, that the man of the earth may no 
more oppress." This appears to look for- 
ward to a day when oppression shall cease 
from the earth. Will there be any slavery 
then? 

Psa. Ixxiii. 8, 9 : " They are corrupt 
and speak wickedly concerning oppression : 
they speak loftily. They set their mouth 
against the heavens : and their tongue walk- 
eth through the earth." A clearer descrip- 
tion could not well be given of modern 
slave-holders, and their abettors ; they speak 
wickedly concerning oppression. They in- 
vade the rights and government of God ; 
they set their mouth against the heavens. 

Psa. xii. 5 : '' For the oppression of the 
poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will 
I arise saith the Lord ; I will set him in 
safety /rom him that pufleth at him." 

Psa. Ixxii. 4 : "He shall judge the poor of 
the people, he shall save the children of the 
needy, and shall break in pieces the oppres- 
sor." 

Isa. 1. 17 : Jjearn to do well : seek judg- 
ment, relieve the oppressed ; judge the fath- 
erless ; plead for the widow." 

Isa, Iviii. 6 : "Is not this the fast that 
I have chosen? To loose the bands of 
wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and 
to let the oppressed go free, and that ye 
break every yoke ?" 

Prov. iii. 31 : " Envy thou not the op- 
pressor, and choose none of his ways." 

This clearly forbids oppression in all its 
practical aspects. 

Prov. xiv, 31 : "He that oppresseth the 



poor reproacheth his maker : but he that 
honoreth him hath mercy on the poor." 

All slaveholders oppress the poor, and of 
course reproach their maker. 

Prov. xxii. 22 : " Eob not the poor be- 
cause h€ is poor ; neither oppress the afflict- 
ed in the gate." 

The afflicted are oppressed in the gates of 
every slaveholding city in this nation. 

Jer. vii. 5-7 : " For if ye thoroughly 
amend your ways and your doings ; if ye 
thoroughly execute judgment between a 
man and his neighbor ; If ye oppress not 
the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, 
and shed not innocent blood in this place, 
neither walk after other gods to your hurt : 
then will I cause you to dwell in this place, 
in the land that I gave to your fathers, for 
ever and ever." 

Jer. xxi. 12 : "0 house of David, thug 
saith the Lord ; execute judgment in the 
morning, and deliver him that is spoiled out 
of the hand of the oppressor, lest my fury 
go out like fire, and burn that none can 
quench it, because of the evil of your doings. 
Behold, I am against thee, 0, inhabitant of 
the valley, and rock of the plain saith the 
Lord ; which say, who shall come down 
against us? or, who shall enter into our 
habitations?" 

Eccle. iv. 1 : " So I returned, and con- 
sidered all the oppressions that are done 
under the sun : and, behold, the tears of 
such as were oppressed, and they had no 
comforter ; and on the side of their oppress- 
ors there was power ; but they had no com- 
forter. 

Eccle. vii. 7 : " Surely oppression mak- 
eth a wise man mad." 

Ezek. xxii. 7 : "In thee have they set 
light by father and mother ; in the midst of 
thee have they dealt by oppression with the 
stranger ; in thee have they vexed the fath- 
erless and the widow." 

Every word of this is true of slavery. 

Yerse 29 : " Tho people of the land have 
used oppression, and exercised robbery, and 
have vexed the poor and needy ; yea, they 
have oppressed the stranger wrongfully." 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OP MAN TO NAN, AS MAN. 



447 



Zeph. iii. 1 : " Woe to her that is filthy 
and polluted, to the oppressing city !" 

This is applicable to any and every slave- 
holding city. 

Mai. iii. 5 : " And I will come near to 
you to judgment ; and I will be a swift wit- 
ness against the sorcerers, and against the 
adulterers, and against false swearers, and 
against those that oppress the hireling in 
his wages, the widow and the fatherless, 
and that turn aside the stranger /rom his 
right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of 
hosts." 

If a man were to stand up in any of the 
slaveholding cities or towns in the southern 
states, and proclaim the above as a commu- 
nication from himself, and as expressive of 
his views of the manner in which God will 
deal with the people, he would be under- 
stood to speak of slavery, and arrested for 
the same. How clear is it then that the 
text comprehends slavery and denounces it. 

It follows that man's right to liberty is 
universal and inalienable. 

SECTION IV. 

The Scriptures of the Old Testament do not 
teach that Chattel Slavery can rightfully 
exist. 

The Bible does not and cannot be made 
to justifiy slavery in practice, even if the 
principle of slavery be found in -it, for want 
of a specific rule to govern the application 
of the principle in reducing it to practice, 
If the Bible justifies slavery, it must be as 
a general principle, without restrictions in 
regard to the persons or classes to whom 
pertains the rights of slavery, on one hand, 
and the obligations of slavery on the other ; 
or it must be in view of some specific rule 
which defines who shall be the master and 
who shall be the slave. If the Bible does 
not justify slavery in one or the other of 
these aspects, it does not and cannot justify 
it in any sense. On the first of these posi- 
tions, but little need be said. But a few if 
any will contend that slavery is right as 
a general principle, without reference to 



race, class, condition or distinction of per- 
sons, who possess the right to hold slaves, 
and upon whom rests the obligation to sub- 
mit to slavery. If slavery be right, as a 
general principle, in the absence of a speci- 
fic rule, defining who shall be the master 
and who shall be the slave, every man must 
be at liberty to enslave whom he can. To 
insist that slavery is right in the absence of 
any specific divine law, which clearly defines 
who shall be the master and who shall be 
the slave, is to say that the right to hold 
slaves is inherent in all men, and that each 
man is at liberty to exercise the right when- 
ever he finds himself in possession of the 
power to seize upon, hold and control his 
fellow being. It is also to say that the ob- 
ligation to submit to be a slave, pertains 
equally to all men. and that each is bound 
to respond to it the moment a hand is laid 
upon him sufficiently strong to hold him. 
If this be so, a man can have a right to 
liberty only so long as he possesses sufficient 
power to maintain it against all aggression. 
This makes right depend upon might. For 
a man to contend that slavery is or can be 
right upon such a principle, is to say that 
it would be right to make him a slave if a 
party could be found, possessing the requi- 
site power. But the theory is too absurd to 
need a refutation. All acts and conditions 
are determined to be right or wrong by 
some rule or law, which relates to the sub- 
ject. In this case, the Bible is that rule or 
law, for the question is^ does the Bible justify 
slavery ? The rule must then be produced 
from the Bible, and it must be so clear and 
specific as to determine who shall be the 
slave and who the master. Suppose the 
Bible said, one man may hold his fellow 
man as a slave ; one man can acquire the 
right of property in his fellow man ; it 
could not justify slaveholding in any given 
case, unless it should at the same time point 
out the person who might hold slaves, and 
the persons whom he might hold. A man, 
with his Bible in one hand, lays his other 
hand upon his fellow, and says, you are my 
slave. Not so fast, says the other; where 



448 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



[book III. 



is your authority for claiming me as a slave ? 
The first opening his Bible, reads the text 
which affirms that man can hold property 
in man, supposing there were such a text. 
The other replies, the law does not name 
you sir, as the man owner, nor me as the 
man owned ; if it justifies slave owning and 
holding, it will as clearly justify me in ow.n- 
ing and holding you, as it will you in hold- 
ing me. There is no way to settle the dis- 
pute but by the law of force, the stronger 
will prove himself to be the slaveholder. 

There can then be no sanction of slavery, 
found in the Bible, in the absence of a spe- 
cific rule, defining clearly and certainly who 
shall be the master and who shall be the 
slave, and appropriating to one his rights, 
and to the other his obligations. Kow, it 
is denied that any such rule exists, and it is 
believed that no sane mind will attempt to 
point out such a rule upon the sacred page. 
It is proposed to examine the several texts 
supposed to support slavery, in which ex- 
amination, two points will be kept distinctly 
in view ; first, none of the texts furnish the 
above rule ; and, secondly, they do not even 
sanction the principle of American Slavery. 

I. The curse that was pronounced upon 
Canaan is the oldest bill of rights slavehold- 
ers are wont to plead. 

" Cursed be Canaan ; a servant of ser- 
vants shall he be unto his brethren. Bles- 
sed be the Lord God of Shem, and Cana- 
an shallbe his servant." Gen. ix. 25. 26. 

If I had not heard Eev. Divines quote 
the above curse pronounced upon Canaan, 
in support of slavery, I should never have 
thought of replying to arguments founded 
upon it. As it is, I reply as follows : — 

1. The colored race which are the victims 
of slavery in this country, are not the de- 
scendants of cursed Canaan. It must be 
admitted by all, that the curse did not fall 
upon Canaan in his own person, but that it 
was prophetic of the condition of his de- 
scendants of Canaan, and of them alone ; 
if, therefore, the colored race are not the 
descendants of Canaan, it cannot justify 
their enslavement. The colored race have 



descended from Ham, through Cush, and not 
through Canaan. The name, Ham, signi- 
fies heat, hot, brown ; and the name, Cush, 
signifies black ; while Canaan, signifies a 
merchant or trader. "When it is considered 
that Hebrew names were descriptive of ac- 
tions, quality or character, and that they 
were often prophetically given, there is force 
in these names as above defined. 

It is farther proved that the colored race 
are not the descendants of cursed Canaan, 
by the only history we have of the family 
of Noah. The descendants of Canaan first 
settled the following countries, as is recorded, 
Genesis x. 15-19. 

" And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, 
and Heth, and the Jebusite, and the Amon- 
nite, and the Girgasite, and the Hivite, and 
the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arva- 
dite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite ; 
and afterward were the families of the Ca- 
nanites, spread abroad. And the border of 
the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou 
comest to Gerar unto Gaza ; and as thou go- 
est unto Sodom and Gomorrah, and Admah, 
and Zeboim, even unto Lasha." 

This clearly points out the nations that 
were dispossessed by the Israelites, when they 
came out of Egypt and took possession of 
the Land of Canaan ; and in this transac- 
tion was fulfilled the curse pronounced upon 
Canaan. 

The Cusjaites, the other branch of Ham's 
family, from whom descended the colored 
race, settled another section of the country. 
Like the Canaanites, they were a seafaring 
people, and sooner arrived at civilization 
than did the other branches of Noah's fam- 
ily. The first great empires of Assyria 
and Egypt were founded by them, and were 
also the republics of Sidon, Tyre and Car- 
thage. Our colored race are the descend- 
ants of the people who founded and sustained 
those early empires and republics. But the 
point in this argument is, the race now in 
slavery, are not the descendants of Canaan, 
upon whom the curse of servitude was pro- 
nounced, and, of course, that curse is no 
justification of slavery as now existing. 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAI^. 



449 



2. The present slaveholding race are not 
the descendants of Shem, to whom was ap- 
propriated the service of Canaan. " Ca- 
naan shall be his servant ;" not the servant 
of some other race. If the text authorizes 
anything, it authorizes the descendants of 
Shem to use the service of the descendants 
of Canaan ; it does not authorize any other 
race to enslave them ; nor does it authorize 
the Canaanites to enslave each other. Who 
then are the present race of slaveholders ? 
Are thy Shemites ? It cannot be proved. 
The Jews and the Arabs or Ishmaelites, are 
the only people on the face of the earth who 
can, with any certainty claim to have de- 
scended from Shem. 

3. Wave the facts set forth above, and 
admit that the curse imposes slavery, and 
that it involves the colored race, and still 
consequ.ences will follow sufficient to over- 
throw the whole argument 'built upon it in 
support of American Slavery. 

(1.) In such case it would justify enslaving 
the whole race. If the argument proves it 
right to enslave any part of the race, it 
proves it right to enslave the whole. 

(2.) It must follow that this nation is fight- 
ing against God, and legislating against the 
fulfillment of divine prophecy. 

If the whole race were devoted to perpe- 
tual slavery by a judicial act of Jehovah, — 
and the whole were thus devoted if any 
were, — why does this nation find fault by 



declaring that it is piracy upon the high 
seas to fulfill that supposed judicial decree 
of Jehovah. 

(3.) It was not American Slavery nor yet 
anything like it, that the posterity of Ca- 
naan was subjected to by the curse pro- 
nounced upon a hapless father. The curse 
was political subjection, political servitude 
and not chattel slavery. 

II. The example of Abraham, and other 
patriarchs, is the next resort of slaveholders 
to obtain the sanction of American Slavery. 

In discussing this claim of the advocates 

of slavery, I shall confine myself principally 

to Abraham, as his case will prove decisive 

for or against slavery. As to the conduct 

2Q 



of Laban, in selling his daughters to Jocob, 
and in giving them to Zilpah and Bilhah 
to be their hand maids, no effort is necessa- 
ry to prove that there was nothing anala- 
gous to American slavery involved in the 
transactions. If it were clearly slavery it- 
self, it would not prove that, or any other 
slavery to be morally right, since the trans- 
actions lack the endorsement of heaven. 

But in the case of Abraham, the subject 
wears a different aspect, as he is clearly pre- 
sented as a representative man, an example 
to be followed, and the friend of God. If 
it could be clearly proved that such a 
man was a slaveholder, it might have the 
appearance of an endorsement of slavery. 
Now what are the facts ? They are as fol- 
lows : — 

"He had sheep and oxen, and he had as- 
ses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, 
and she-asses, and camels." Gen. xii. 16. 

"And when Abraham heard that his 
brother was taken captive, he armed his 
trained servants, born in his house, three 
hundred and eighteen." Gen. xiv. 14. 

" And he that is eight days old shall be 
circumcised among you, every man-child 
in your generations, he that is born in thy 
house, or bought with thy money of any 
stranger, which is not of thy seed. He 
that is born in thy house and he that is 
bought with thy money must needs be cir- 
cumcised." Gen. xvii., 12-13. 

" And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, 
and men-servants, and women-servants, and 
gave them to Abraham." Gen. xx. 14. 

We have now before us all the essential 
proof that Abraham was a slaveholder, for 
if the above texts do not prove it, it is not 
proved by any other circumstance that may 
be mentioned in his history ; as the trans- 
actions in the case of Hagar, Gen xvi. 1- 
9; and in his swearing of his servant, in 
relation to procuring a wife for his son 
Isaac. Gen. xxiv. 1-4. 

The question is, can there be found in 
any or all of these facts, the slightest justi- 
fication of American Slavery? No; must 
be the decisive answer. 



450 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



[book III. 



1. If it were clear that Abraham was a 
slaveholder, which is not admitted, it would 
be no justification of slavery anywhere at 
any time, much less of American Slavery at 
the zenith of the nineteenth century. The 
argument can be conclusive in support of 
the right of slavehoiding, only upon the 
supposition that everything which Abra 
ham did, was not only right for him at the 
time, and in the circumstances, but also 
right to be followed as an example by all 
men, during all time, and in all circumstan- 
ces. If what was right for Abraham, in 
his time and his circumstances, is not nec- 
essarily right for all men now, in our cir- 
cumstance, the fact that Abraham held 
slaves, does not prove it right for us to 
hold slaves now. Again, if all that Abra- 
ham did was not right, the fact that he 
held slaves, cannot prove slavehoiding 
right, for if he did some things which were 
wrong, this act of slavehoiding may have 
been one of those wrong things ; and if he 
held slaves wrongfully, it cannot prove it 
right for us to hold slaves. It cannot be 
pretended that Abraham's slavehoiding, 
allowing it, has any special endorsement by 
heaven, and therefore it cannot be inferred 
that it is right, only on the ground that 
everything which he did was right. 

Twice did Abraham practice duplicity, 
if not falsehood, by saying that his wife 
was his sister. Gen. xii. 13, and xx. 2. 

Again, Abraham, at the request of his 
^ fruitless wife, Sarah, took Hagar, a hand- 
maid, a servant girl, to his bosom and bed, 
;that he might have children by her. 

But the above is not all, for we read that 
" Abraham gave all that he had to his son 
Isaac. But unto the sons of the concu- 
bines which Abraham had, Abraham gave 
gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his 
son, while he yet lived, eastward unto the 
east country." Gen. xxv. 5, 6. 

2. It is perfectly plain that there was 
nothing in the relation subsisting between 
Abraham and his servants, analagous to 
American Slavery. It has been shown 
that, if slavery had existed, it would be no 



justification of American Slavery, but it 
shall now be shown that there was no 
slavery in the case. Where is the proof that 
Abraham's servants were chattel slaves ? 

(1.) It is not found in the word servant, 
for this is applied to all classes of laborers 
and dependents. It is not necessary at 
this point to resort to criticism, but only 
to show how the word is used generally in 
the language of those times. Abraham 
called himself the servant of the three an- 
gels that visited him. Gen. xviii. 3. He 
could not have designed to have expressed 
the idea of a slave. " Lot called himself 
the servant of the angels which led him out 
of the city." Gen. xix. 1-9. Jacob called 
himself the servant of Esau. Gen. xxxiii. 5. 
But the reverse of this would be true if the 
word servant meant slave. *' And Isaac 
answered and said unto Esan, behold, I 
have made him thy Lord, and all his breth- 
ren have I given to him for servants." Gen. 
xxvii. 37. The children of Esau were not 
given to the children of Jacob as slaves, 
and servant means only inferiority or polit- 
ical subjection. Pharoah is said to have 
made a feast to all his servants. Gen. xii. 
20 ; but it will ngt be pretended that slaves 
are intended. Kings do not make feasts 
to slaves upon their birth days. All sub- 
jects were the servants of their kings, and 
even the highest officers of the army, were 
in the language of the times, the servants of 
the sovereigns ; it is plain therefore, that 
the fact that Abraham had servants, does 
not prove that he was a slaveholder. 

Abraham was a prince, and his servants 
were his subjects that attached themselves 
to his government and followed him. 

(2.) The proof that Abraham was a 
slaveholder is not found in the fact that he 
had servants bought with his money. In 
those times all the people were the servants 
of their petty kings, and persons might be 
transferred from one prince to another for 
money, without supposing they were chat- 
tel slaves. 

(3.) The proof that Abraham was a 
slaveholder is not found in the fact that he 



CHAP. V. 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



451 



had servants born in his house. Abraham 
had no house, in our use of the word, but 
dwelt in a tent and led a wandering life. 
By being born in his house, is meant, born 
in his family or among his attendants. 
"With attendants enough to take care of 
his flocks and herds, and to protect, as a 
guard, his person and great wealth, there 
must have been many servants born in his 
house ; that is, among his attendants and 
followers, but where is the proof that they 
were his personal property, his chattel 
slaves ? 

(4.) The proof that Abraham was a 
slaveholder is not found in the fact that he 
had men serva.nts and maid servants given 
to him by Abimelech, as above quoted. 
Abimelech gave him sheep and oxen, and 
as Abraham probably had as many before, 
as he had servants to watch over, the 
attendants were transferred, and became 
Abraham's followers by their own consent 
and as they were both kings, it was only 
a transfer of subjects from one government 
to another, and not a gift of chattel slaves 

But there is proof that Abraham was 
not a slaveholder. 

1. His three hundred and eighteen trained 
servants which were born in his house, 
could not have been slaves in the sense of 
American Slavery. Whatever they were, 
their adherence to Abraham must have 
been voluntary. They constituted his army, 
and a brave army were they, under a brave 
leader, when he led them to the rescue of 
Lot and the other captives, and slew the 
armies of four kings, and took the spoils. 

2. Abraham said to God, " To me thou 
hast given no seed : and lo, one born in my 
house is mine heir." Gen. xv. 3. This 
was before the birth of Ishmael. 

Those born in his house then, could not 
have been slaves, or they would not have 
been his heirs. 

3. Once more, Abraham's oldest servant 
ruled over all that he had, and was charged 
with the important business of negotiating 
with his distant kindred for a wife for his 
son Isaac. The business was committed 



to him under the solemnities of an oath. 
Gen. xxiv. 1-5. 

m. The Jewish polity as established by 
Moses, under God, is the final result of 
slaveholders to find an endorsement of 
American Slavery within the lids of the 
Old Testament. That there is much legis- 
lation concerning masters and servants, 
and that servitude, of some sort is tolerated, 
modified and regulated, it would be vain to 
deny. But that American Slavery is found 
upon the record, or anything analagous to 
it, is denied. 

1. The system introduced by Moses, 
whatever it was in fact, was a great im- 
provement on all former times and organ- 
isms. If there are what may be deemed 
social evils in the light of the Gospel, and 
which the Gospel corrects, they were not 
introduced by Moses, but are the relic of a 
more barbarous state of things, which his 
system did not entirely blot out in its great 
work of reformation, though it curtailed 
and mitigated every evil. If any such sup- 
posed evil is found, it will be seen, not to 
have been introduced as a new thing, but 
to be there by way of a modification of 
some previously existing evil, the severity 
of which is averted by legislative restraints 
and protections. 

2. The above remark is peculiarly true 
and forcible in relation to servitude, as tol- 
erated and limited and modified by the laws 
of Moses. The law of Moses nowhere in- 
troduces a system of servitude as a new 
thing, or new element in society, but treats 
of it as a thing already existing, as an evil 
to be restrained, and modified. 

3. When we examine more particularly 
into the several provisions concerning servi- 
tude, we find that every regulation concern- 
ing it, is for the protection and benefit of 
the servant, and not one for the benefit of 
the master. Not one new right or privi- 
lege is bestowed upon the master ; he pos- 
sessed every right, and enjoyed every privi- 
lege, before the law was given which he can 
claim and exercise under it, but it throws 
around him many restraints, and many pro- 



452 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. [BOOK III. 



tections around the servant, and secures to 
liim many rights and privileges which he 
would not be likely to enjoy without the 
law. It is safe therefore to say that the 
whole system was designed for the benefit of 
the servile classes, which leaves not a single 
analogy between it and American Slavery. 

The first allusion to servitude in the Jew- 
ish economy is as follows : " And the Lord 
said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordi- 
nance of the passover : There shall no stran- 
ger eat thereof : But every man's servant 
that is bought for money, when thou hast 
circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof." 
Exo. xii. 43-45. This text was not de- 
signed to create or justify slavery, if slavery 
be implied in its language. The most that 
can be made of it, is that it takes for grant- 
ed that there will be servants bought with 
money, and hired servants, without institut- 
ing, providing for, or sanctioning either sys- 
tem of service. 

The only proof that slavery existed, is 
found in the fact that servants were bought 
with money. It will not be pretended that 
hired servants were slaves ; we have there- 
fore only to settle the case of servants 
bought with money. The assumption that 
servants bought with money were chattel 
slaves is founded upon the supposition that 
the language of the Jewish law is to be in- 
terpreted by our usages. 

The language, " servant bought with thy 
money," cannot prove that a chattel slave 
is meant, only upon the supposition that no 
person can be bought with money, without 
being a chattel slave, which is false upon 
the very face of the record. It is only ne- 
cessary to Show that things and persons 
were bought with money, without becoming 
subject to the incidents of property or chat- 
tie slavery, to settle the whole question so 
far as the meaning of buy and bought is 
concerned. The word buy, in Scripture 
language, means to get, gain, acquire, ob- 
tain, possess ; and when bought with money 
is the expression, it denotes merely the 
means by which the thing was obtained. A 
few quotations will settle this question. 



1. The Jews bought and sold their lands 
for money, which lands were not, and could 
not be permanently alienated by such a sale 
and purchase. They might be redeemed at 
any time, and if not redeemed, they must re- 
vert at the Jubilee. The price was to be 
according to the number of years before the 
jubilee when lands were sold and bought, as 
the following text shows : 

" And if thou sell aught unto thy neigh- 
bor, or buyest ought of thy neighbor's hand, 
ye shall not oppress one another : 

" According to the number of years after 
the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy neighbor, 
and according unto the number of years of 
the fruits he shall sell unto thee : 

" iLccording to the multitude of years thou 
shalt increase the price thereof, and accord- 
ing to the fewness of years thou shalt di- 
minish the price of it : for according to the 
number of the years of the fruit doth he sell 
unto thee." Levi. xxv. 14-16. 

The land was sold and bought for money, 
and yet no title was given or obtained to it, 
but only a limited possession. That posses- 
sion might be for one, five, or ten years, or 
more, as the sale was distant from the time 
of the jubilee. In Scripture language it was 
buying and selling, yet in our language, it 
was no sale, but a lease for a term of years. 
If, then, land could be bought for money, 
without acquiring the right of property, but 
only the right of possession and increase for 
a time, it follows that men could be bought 
for money without acquiring in them the 
right of property, but only a right to their 
labor. A man gave another possession of 
his land, with the right of all the increase 
for a given number of years, when it must 
return to him, and this is called selling and 
buying it, in Scripture language. So a man 
agrees to serve another for a valuable con- 
sideration, paid to him in advance, and in 
Scripture language he is said to sell himself, 
and the other is said to buy him. 

2. Hebrew servants were bought with 
money and it is admitted on all hands, that 
tliey were not chattel slaves. 

" If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



453 



shall lie serve ; and in the seventh he shall 
go out free for nothing." Exo. xxi. 2. 

The man is clearly bought in the sense of 
Jewish law, and yet he clearly owns himself 
again on the seventh year and makes his 
own appropriation of himself thereafter. 
But Jews could not be chattel slaves, for 
two reasons. First, the Jubilee set every 
one of them free. " Ye shall proclaim lib- 
erty throughout the land unto all the inhab- 
itants thereof." Lev. xxv. 10. " He shall 
be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the 
year of Jubilee, and then shall he depart 
from thee, both he and his children with 
him." Verse 40-41. Secondly, every Jew 
had a right in the soil, and must be returned 
to its possession and enjoyment at the Jubi- 
lee. " In the year of this Jubilee ye shall 
return every man to his possession." Yerse 
13. " Ye shall return every man unto his 
possession, and ye shall return every man 
unto his family." Yerse 10. 

Jews were bought and sold for money ; 
but Jews could not be chattel slaves, after 
the pattern of American Slavery ; and 
therefore, the simple fact that servants were 
bought with money, does not and cannot 
prove the existence of chattel slavery. 

3. Wives were bought for money, or in 
exchange for other commodities, and yet it 
would not be regarded as sound to argue 
from thence that they were chattel slaves, or 
the absolute property of their husbands, in 
our sense of proj^erty. 

Jacob bought both his wives of Laban 
their father. G-en. xxix. 18-27. David 
purchased Michael, Saul's daughter to be 
his wife. 1 Sam. xviii. 27. Shechem, son 
of Hamor the Hivite, wished to purchase 
Dinah, Jacob's daughter for a wife, and of- 
fered any price they should demand. Gen 
xxxiv. 11-12, Hosea bought a wife and 
paid for her, part in silver and the balance 
in barley. Hosea iii. 2, Boaz said, " Ruth 
the Moabites have I purchased to be my 
wife." Ruth iv. 10. The word purchased, 
is rendered bought in the margin. 

Enough has been said to show that it was 
a common thing to purchase wives, that they 



were bought with money. The evidence 
that slas^ery existed is the fact that servants 
were bought with money, but wives were al- 
so bought with money, from which it must 
follow either that the fact that servants were 
bought does not prove that they were slaves, 
or else the fact that wives were bought must 
prove that they were slaves, 

" If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years 
he shall serve : and in the seventh he shall 
go out free for nothing. 

" If he came in by himself, he shall go out 
by himself : if he were married, then his wife 
shall go out with him. 

" If his master have given him a wife, and 
she have borne him sons or daughters, the 
wife and her children shall be her master's 
and he shall go out by himself, 

" And if the servant shall plaialy say, I 
love my master, my wife, and my children ; 
I will not go out free : 

" Then his master shall bring him unto the 
judges : he shall also bring him to the door, 
or unto the door post : and his master shall 
bore his ear through with an awl ; and he 
shall serve him for ever," Exo. xxi. 2-6. 

On this provision I remark, 

1. It was clearly instituted for the benefit 
and protection of the servant, and not for 
the master's benefit. It confers no right, no 
discretionary power upon the master, save 
the right of retaining the wife and children 
in a given case, but it does bestow a dicre- 
tionary power upon the servant. It is this, 
the servant sells himself for six years, and 
no more — " Six years shall he serve, and in 
the seventh he shall go out free" — but the 
law gives the servant the power to extend 
the contract at the end of the sixth year, to, 
" for ever," as our translators have rendered 
it, but which I suppose means unto the Jubi- 
lee. The master has no power to hold him 
another day, if he wishes to leave at the 
end of the sixth year ; he has no power to 
turn him away ; if the servant wishes to stay, 
he is compelled to retain him. Thus is it 
seen that the law is all on the side of the 
servant, and this does not look much like 
American Slavery, 



454 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. [BOOK III. 



2. The provision is clearly to protect the 
servant against being separated from his 
wife and children, in the case where the mas- 
ter has the right of retaining them. This is 
in case the master has given him a wife. 
This wife might be the master's daughter, 
for which the servant may be supposed not 
to have paid the customary dowery. Or the 
wife may be a Hebrew maid servant, having 
one, two, three or four of the six years yet 
to serve before she can go out. Or, what is 
more probable, the wife may be a servant 
from the Gentiles, a proselyte, bound to serve 
until the jubilee. In either of these cases, 
it would be doing violence to the marriage 
relation to send the servant away without 
his wife and children, and hence the law pro- 
vides that the servant may demand an exten- 
sion of the contract of his servitude " for 
ever," that is, as I understand it, to the jubi- 
lee. 

o. Whatever may be thought of the law 
under consideration, in all other aspects, it 
is certain that the service is voluntarily en- 
tered into, on the part of the servant, after 
trying it six years, and this destroys all 
analogy to American Slavery. 

The next resort of Slavery is to the fol- 
lowing provision of the law. 

'' If a man smite his servant or his maid, 
with a rod, and he die under his hand ; he 
shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding 
if he continue a day or two, he shall not be 
punished " for he is his money." Exo. xx. xi. 
20, 21. 

This law does not institute or establish 
slavery, or any kind of servitude. It mere- 
ly refers to it, for the purpose of settling a 
rule of jurisprudence, applicable in peculiar 
cases. It assumes the facts that there are 
masters and servants, but it does not estab- 
lish, legalize or justify the relation, but it 
provides for the administration of justice 
between the parties in a given case. The 
only proof which the text can be supposed 
to furnish in .support of slavery, must de- 
pend upon two circumstances, the fact that 
the master presumes to smite the servant 
with a rod, and the fact that the servant is 



declared to be the master's money. These 
two points need examination. 

Does the fact that the law presumes that 
a master may smite his servant with a rod 
that he die, prove that the servant is a chat- 
tel slave ? Surely not. There is no proof 
that the smiting is in any sense authorized 
or justified by this or any other law. Smit- 
ing itself is not justified, even if it be not 
anto death. The laws of our slaveholding 
states authorize masters directly to punish 
their slaves, but no such liberty is given in 
the Scriptures. We challenge the produc- 
tion of the first text which authorizes a mas- 
ter to inflict corporeal correction upon a ser- 
vant. Parents are required to correct their 
children. This principle is contained in all 
the following texts : Deut. viii. 5 ; Prov. 
iii. 12 ; xiii. 24 ; xix. 18 ; xxiii. 13, 14 ; xxix. 
15-17 ; Heb. xii. 7-9. While the Scrip- 
tures are so full and explicit on the subject 
of the correction of children by parents, 
there is not one text which requires mas- 
ters, or even authorizes them to punish their 
servants. 

But " he is his money." This doubtless 
is regarded as the strong hold of slavery. 
All that is necessary for me to prove is that 
it does not necessarily involve chattel slave- 
ry, and this wall be easily accomplished. 

1. The statute is a general one, including 
all classes of servants, many of whom, it has 
been seen, were not and could not be chat- 
tel slaves. 

2. The language is most clearly figura- 
tive, and can be literally true only in a 
sense which divests it of all proof of chattle- 
ship. 

" He is his money." All money in those 
days was gold or silver. But the servant 
was neither gold or silver, and was not 
money. A literal translation would strength- 
en this view. The expression, " he is his 
money," literally translated would read, 
" his silver is he." But a servant is not 
silver, is not money, but flesh and blood and 
bones, body and soul. What then is meant 
by the expression? Simply this, he has 
cost the master money, the master has the 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



455 



value of money in him, and loses money's 
value by his death. But this is true of all 
servants bought with money, or whose wa- 
ges are paid in advance, and therefore the 
expression cannot prove that the servant 
said to be money is a chattel slave. 

3. The obvious intention of the whole 
statute, as well as of that particular clause, 
requires no such construction, but the end 
is reached just as clearly and forcibly with- 
out involving the chattel principle. 

The design of the general statute is to 
secure the condemnation of the master in 
case of willful murder, and thereby furnish 
greater security to the servant ; as well as 
to secure the master against being put to 
death as a murderer, when no murder was 
intended. 

It is not to be inferred that the killing is 
to be punished as an inferior crime, because 
the killed is a servant. The translation 
perverts the sense. The word, nakam trans- 
lated punished, should be rendered avenged. 
It is not the master that is to be avenged, 
but the servant's death, which, under the cir- 
cumstances necessarily means that the mas- 
ter shall be put to death as a murderer. 
This word, though it occurs repeatedly in 
the Old Testament, is translated punished in 
no other text, but is generally translated 
avenged, and in a very few instances, to 
take vengeance or to revenge. The word 
is thus defined in Eoy's Hebrew and En- 
glish Dictionary : " Nakam, 1, He recom- 
pensed or paid ; 2, avenged, revenged, cut 
off, as murderers ; 3, vindicated, advoca- 
ted, as the cause of another." The ob- 
ject of the statute is to secure such execu- 
tion in one case, and to prevent it in another. 

If the master smite his servant with a 
rod, and he die under his hand, the death 
shall surely be avenged. The instrument is 
a rod, not an axe. A man might kill with 
an axe, without intending it, but not with a 
rod. If the servant died under his hand, 
and a rod only was used, the proof is posi- 
tive that he meant to kill him, and must 
have done it willfully and by protracted tor- 
ture. Though a man might be likely to 



take some more fatal instrument, if he 
meant to kill, yet the fact that he did kill 
with such an instrument, is proof positive 
that he meant to kill, and the avenger is 
authorized to smite him as a murderer. 

But suppose the servant does not die un- 
der his hand, but continues a day or two, 
then his death shall not be avenged. And 
why ? Because the evidence is not clear 
that he meant to kill him. He did not kiK 
him on the spot, as he would most likely 
have done had he designed to take his life. 
Moreover it was only a rod with which he 
smote him, and this is presumptive evidence 
that he did not mean to kill him ; had he 
designed his death, he would have been like- 
ly to select a more fatal instrument than a 
rod with which to smite. Finally, " he is 
his money ;" that is, he has a monied inter- 
est in him, and loses the worth of money 
by his death, and this is an additional proof 
that he did not mean to kill him. The de- 
sign of this statement, "he is his money," is to 
show that the master's monied interest was 
against his killing the servant, that he lost 
money by his death, and this is just as clear 
in the case of a Hebrew servant bought 
with money, who could not be a chattel 
slave. The monied argument is good in 
the case of any servant, whose wages is paid 
in advance, and as that kind of service was 
common, the idea of chattel slavery is not 
in the least involved. 

I now approach the last resort of slave- 
ry within the lids of the Old Testament, 
to which it must be expected to cling as a 
man of blood to the horns of the altar, 
when the lifted arm of the avenger is seen 
near at hand, The law in question reads as 
follows : 

" Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, 
which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen 
that are round about you ; of them shall ye 
buy bondmen and bondmaids. 

" Moreover, of the children of the stran- 
gers that do sojourn among you, of them 
shall ye buy, and of their famihes that are 
with you, which they begat in your land : 
and they shall be your possession. 



456 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



[book III. 



" And ye sliall take them as an inlieri- 
tance for your children after you, to inherit 
them for a possession ; they shall be your 
bondmen forever : but over your breth- 
ren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule 
one over another with rigor," Lev. xxv. 
44^46. 

The slave trade was in the hight of its 
progress at the time the translation took 
place. It had previously attracted the at- 
tention of Church and State. At first it 
met. with opposition from both. The first 
grant of the privilege of bringing slaves to 
America, was by Charles Y. in 1517. This 
appears to have been principally secured by 
the representations of Las Casas, a priest, 
and afterwards a bishop. But after this, 
Charles repented of the countenance he gave 
the slave trade, and Pope Leo X., his co- 
temporary, denounced the system, and de- 
clared that not only the Christian religion 
but nature itself cried out against a state 
of slavery." About the year 1556, Queen 
Elizabeth was deceived into a permit grant- 
ed to Sir John Hawkins, to bring negroes 
from Africa ; and she charged him not to 
carry them to America without their con 
sent. But these scruples were overcome 
by the false glosses put upon this and other 
texts by interested priests, and by the great 
profit of the traffic. Here the matter rested, 
and all took it for granted without further 
examination, that these pro-slavery exposi- 
tions were right, and when King James' 
translators commenced their work in 1 607, 
they very naturally adopted the false expo- 
sitions designed to countenance the slave 
trade, and translated the text under con- 
sideration, as well as some others, in the 
light of those false glosses by which they 
avoided coming in contact with the slave 
trade, then in its greatest prosperity in En- 
gland. 

This will account for the reading of the 
text under consideration. There is nothing 
in the original to justify the words " bond- 
men and bond-maids ;" it should be man- 
servant and woman-servant. Both are in 
the singular, and not plural, in the Hebrew 



text. The word translated buy is most pro- 
perly translated procure. The word trans- 
lated heathen, is properly rendered Gentiles, 
and might be rendered nations. The word 
translated /orei;er cannot bear that render- 
ing in this case ; it cannot mean longer than 
natural life, and that is never the sense of 
the English wovd forever. The word ren- 
dered /ore^;cr, is le-o-lam, and its proper 
meaning is endless, and is correctly rendered 
forever, or to eternity, but here it cannot 
be understood in its fall sense. It is used 
to denote a long period, less even than the 
whole of time. Many rites of the Jews 
were to be observed forever, which forever 
has past and ended. A single text will 
serve as an illustration of the use of the word 
in a limited sense. " Bath-shbea said Let 
my lord king David live forever." 1 Kings 
i. 31. 

This can mean but a short indefinite pe- 
riod, for David was then old. It can mean 
no more than a long time, for a man in his 
circumstances. But in the expression, " they 
shall be your bond-men forever," forever can 
mean no more than their natural life, and 
yet it is never employed to express this in- 
definite period. Forever, therefore, does not 
express the sense of the text, and as the pe- 
riod of the jubilee was the longest time a 
person could be retained in service by one 
contract, which will hereafter be more fully 
shown, it is certain that forever could not 
extend beyond the jubilee, and it is most 
natural to understand it as referring to that 
period, or to some period to be fixed upon 
in the contract, but not named in the law. 
I will now introduce a literal translation of 
the text. 

" And thy man servant, and thy woman 
servant, shall be to thee from among the 
Gentiles which are round about you. From 
them ye shall procure a man servant and a 
woman servant. 

" And also of the children of foreigners 
that reside with you, from them ye may pro- 
cure of their families which are with them, 
that were born in your land ; they shall be 
to you for a possession, (service.) 



CHAP. Y.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



457 



" And ye shall choose them for your chil- 
dren after you, to preside over them as their 
portion, unto the end of the time (specified.) " 
-Roy. 

I think no Hebrew scholar will deny that 
this translation is correct in all essential par- 
ticulars, and if it be so, it follows, not only 
that the translation in the common version 
perverts the sense of the original text to 
support slavery, but that nothing like Amer- 
ican Slavery is found in the law of Moses, 
when it is correctly understood. 

What then does this law mean ? This is 
an important inquiry. Every law should 
be considered as designed to secure some 
important end, especially when God is the 
Legislator. This law cannot have been de- 
signed to establish a system of human bond- 
age like American Slavery, and must have 
been designed to secure some other end, and 
not only a benevolent end, but one conso- 
nant with the general design of the whole 
system of which it is a part. 

1. God designed to make of the Jews a 
numerous, wealthy and powerful nation. To 
secure this they must occupy a productive 
country, which he gave them, described as 
" a land flowing with milk and honey." It 
was necessary also that they should be kept 
from being mingled with other nations, 
either by emigration to other countries, or 
by a large influx of strangers, who should 
not become identified with their religion and 
nationality. It was necessary to keep them 
a distinct people. Further to secure this 
end, their lands were secured forever, be- 
yond their power to alienate them, so that 
every Jew was a freeholder in fact, or in 
prospect. A foreigner could not become 
permanently possessed of their lands, and 
could obtain a lasting interest in them only 
by becoming incorporated with some branch 
of the Jewish family, for which provision 
was made. 

2. The proposed position of the Jewish 
nation, with the means employed to secure it, 
the inalienability of their lands, tended 
to produce certain incidental evils, and a 
want of an element essential to the great- 



ness and independence of any people, viz., a 
numerous and well sustained laboring class, 
beyond the actual proprietors of the soil. 

The circumstances of the Jews tended to 
produce a want of such a laboring class. 
A few of the influences tending to produce 
this want shall be named. 

(1.) They were all land owners, and none 
need therefore engage in other pursuits than 
cultivating the soil, unless reduced by mis- 
fortune or bad economy. This would pro- 
duce but very few mechanics and laborers 
to be hired. 

(2.) Such was the richness of their coun- 
try, so great the productiveness of the soil, 
that a large amount of labor could be ex- 
pended with profit to the land owner, while 
the fact that every one was a land owner, 
tended to render such labor difficult to ob- 
tain. In every prosperous community there 
is needed many more laborers than actual 
land owners, some must operate as mechan- 
ics, some as mcrchuuts, some must cultivate 
the lands of the unhealthy and widows, 
some must labor as additional helps to those 
who cultivate their own lands, and others 
will be needed as domestic help, commonly 
called servants. 

(3.) The religion of the Jews required 
them to devote a large portion of their time 
to its special duties and exercises, rendering 
more laborers necessary to accomplish the 
same amount of labor in a given season. 
Every seventh year was a Sabbath the whole 
year. This was one seventh of all the time, 
and if averaged among the seven years, 
would be to each year just equal to the 
weekly Sabbath. 

Next was the weekly Sabbath, every sev- 
enth day. This was another seventh of their 
whole time. Then there were three annual 
feasts ; the Passover, which lasted seven 
days ; the Pentecost or feast of weeks, which 
lasted seven days ; and the feast of Taber- 
nacles, which lasted eight days. 

Their national feasts were held in one 
place, the place which the Lord chose, which 
was Jerusalem, and thither the tribes went 
up to worship. 



458 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN, 



[book hi 



From oue third to one half of their time 
was occupied with religious matters. This 
must have required an increased number of 
laborers. It should be remarked that all 
that class of servants which some suppose 
to have been slaves, were required to ob- 
serve all these feasts, and Sabbaths. It 
may be asked how it could be expected that 
they should become great and wealthy, with 
a religion laying so heavy a tax upon their 
time. The answer is plain, in the words of 
the Law Giver himself. 

" And if ye shall say, "What shall we eat 
the seventh year ? behold we shall not sow 
nor gather our increase : then I will com- 
mand my blessing upon you in the sixth year, 
and it shall bring forth fruit for three years." 
Lev. XXV. 20, 21. 

The system was not adapted to the whole 
world, embracing all countries and climates ; 
and it was established by God only as a 
preparatory step, to last until the time of 
reformation, when they should pass away 
with what Peter calls " a yoke which neith- 
er our fathers nor we were able to bear." 
But while the system lasted, it had to be 
made consistent with itself, and if one part 
tended to produce incidental evils, they had 
to be overcome by the action of some other 
part. One evil we have seen was a want 
of a suflBcient number of laborers. This 
would naturally and mainly result first, from 
the inalienability of their lands, making all 
the Jews land owners ; secondly, from the 
same fact tending to prevent other people 
from settling among them on account of 
their not being able to obtain a freehold es- 
tate ; thirdly, from their religion, which con- 
sumed so much of their time ; and fourthly, 
from the danger to their whole system, which 
would arise from allowing laborers from 
other nations in sufficient numbers to be- 
come resident among them, without being 
naturalized and brought under the control- 
ling influence of their laws and religion. 
To overcome this difficulty, the celebrated 
law was introduced, now under considera- 
tion, authorizing them to obtain servants 
from the Gentiles. " Thy man servant and 



thy woman servant shall be to thee from 
among the Gentiles. From them ye shall 
procure a man servant and a woman ser- 
vant." The law has two faces to it, and re- 
moves two evils at once. 

First, it renders the employment of Gen- 
tiles lawful, and thereby supplying the de- 
mand for laborers, and increases the popu- 
lation. 

Secondly, it removed a temptation to 
which they would otherwise have been ex- 
posed, to oppress and degrade one another. 

Some in every community will be unfor- 
tunate or prodigal, and fall into decay, and 
become dependent. This is contemplated in 
the law, verses 35, 36, 39, 42. Owing to 
the want of laborers and domestics, resul1>- 
ing as above, the wealthy might have been 
tempted to keep the poor down, for the sake 
of being able to obtain their services ; but 
this the law prevents in two ways. First, 
it forbids it in so many words, and secondly, 
it opens another door through which ser- 
vants can be lawfully obtained. Such ser- 
vants were, by the very operation of that 
law, naturalized and became finally incor- 
porated with the Jewish nation, and pos- 
sessed in common with them all their civil 
and religious privileges and blessings. Thus 
did this law, which has been so terribly per- 
verted and abused to make it justify Amer- 
ican Slavery, supply the land with labor, 
and at the same time naturalize the laborei' to 
the nation, and proselyte him to the faith and 
worship of the true God. 

But how were these servants obtained. 
Our translation says they were bought. If 
it were so, it would be clear that they vol- 
untarily sold themselves, and used the price 
as they saw fit for their own benefit. Of 
whom else could they be bought, by men 
whose law provided that " he that stealeth 
a man and selleth him, or if he be found in 
his hand shall surely be put to death." Exo. 
xxi. 16. 

There is no law in all the book of God, 
by any provision of which, one man can get 
another into his possession to sell him in the 
market, without steaUng. The law of the 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OP MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



459 



Jews punished the stealing and selling of 
men with death, and would he buy such sto- 
len men ? The right to buy involves the 
right to sell, on the part of him of whom 
the purchase is made. There being no way 
by which a man can obtain possession of a 
man to sell him but by stealing him, they 
could have been bought of none but them- 
selves. It is true they might buy captives 
out of the hands of the heathen, but cap- 
tives are stolen if held and sold as slaves. 
They could therefore rightfully buy cap- 
tives, only to free them, for as the captor 
has no title to captives, so he can sell none, 
and the buyer can buy none. If we under- 
stand by buying, merely engaging the ser- 
vices of men for a specified time for a valu- 
able consideration agreed upon between the 
parties, the subject is all plain. Then might 
the Gentiles sell themselves to the Jews, or 
parents might sell their children to the Jews, 
by which they apprenticed them to the Jew- 
ish state as prospective citizens, and to the 
Jewish religion. I know not how Gentile 
parents could have done better by their 
children. It presented a brighter prospect 
than the sale of children does now in the 
human markets. 

But we have seen that the word buy in our 
sense of the term, is not in the text, that it 
is procure. Well, how were they procured ? 
A Jew shall testify. Dr. Eoy, in sending 
me the translation above given, accompanied 
it with the following : 

" There is no word in the Bible for slave ; 
a ved is the only word to be found there ; 
and means a hired man, servant, laborer, 
soldier, minister, magistrate, messenger, an- 
gel, prophet, priest, king, and Christ him- 
self. Isa. lii. 13 : but it never means a slave 
for life. 

For the law of the Sanhedrim forbids 
slavery. 

" 1. The contract was to be mutual and 
voluntary. 

"2. It was conditional that the servant 
should within one year become a Proselyte 
to the Jewish religion ; if not, he was to be 
discharofed. 



" 3. If he became such, he was to be gov- 
erned by the same law, to eat at the same 
table, sup out of the same dish, and eat the 
same Passover with his master. 

'^ 4. Finally, the law allowed him to marry 
his master's daughter. Prov. xxix. 21. Tan- 
hee in Sanhedrim." 

This confirms the view I have given, that 
the law presented a system of naturalization 
and of proselytism. The circumstances of 
the case were such as to call for such a pro- 
vision. In addition to what has been said 
of the necessity of some source whence la- 
borers might be obtained, if we look at the 
condi-tion of the Gentiles, we shall see that 
their circumstances pointed them out as that 
source, under proper regulations and restric- 
tions. They were generally inferior to the 
Jews in point of intelligence and civilization, 
and on the subject of religion, they were in 
the darkest midnight, while the Jews enjoyed 
the light of heaven. They were divided 
into petty kingdoms, and were but little 
more tha.n the servants of their kings, who 
wielded an arbitrary if not an absolute scep- 
tre over them. But moral advantages are 
above all other advantages, and these were 
found only in the land of Israel ; over that 
land the wing of the Almighty was spread ; 
there the Angel of the Covenant watched 
behind the vail, and the divine presence 
glowed upon the mercy seat above the ark, 
and from that land alone, the way shown 
clearly that leads to heaven. If David who 
had danced before the unvailed ark, could 
exclaim, " I had rather be a door keeper in 
the house of my God, than to dwell in the 
tents of wickedness, to bring a Gentile from 
the darkness of idolatry to the tent service 
of an Israelite, where God's own institutions 
shone upon him must have been a transition 
over which angels rejoiced. A position 
which would have been menial to a native 
Jew, was honor, exultation and even salva- 
tion to a Gentile, coming from the land of 
shadows and death. 

To this must be added what we must sup- 
pose was the case, that numbers of heathen 
were attracted by the Great fame of the 



460 



THE DUTIES OP MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. [BOOK III. 



Jews, that the report of what God had 
done for them, and of all the wonders he had 
wrought, and how he dwelled in that land, 
spread even among the surrounding na- 
tions, and that many resorted there, even to 
better their condition as servants. But it 
would not have been safe to have left 
these matters to regulate themselves, or to 
the will of each individual contracting par- 
ty without the restraints of law, and hence 
all the laws regulating the subject of servi- 
tude. 

The Jews were authorized to take the 
heathen that might come to them, on con- 
dition that they become proselytes to their 
religion, and then when they were fully in- 
ducted, they became citizens with all the 
rights of native Jews, and their children 
born in the land were regarded as native 
Jews. There can be no doubt many be- 
came proselytes by this system, which ren- 
dered the truth and altars of God accessi- 
ble to the Gentiles even under the Mosaic 
system. And this proselyting the Gentiles 
was but the first fruits of their future grand 
gathering in Christ Jesus, And that Gen- 
tile blood was introduced into Jewish veins 
is evident ; for David, the brightest lamp 
of the nation, descended on the side of his 
mother, from a Moabitess woman, who be- 
came a proselyte to the Jewish religion. 

SECTION V. 

The Scriptures of the New Testament do 
iMt teach that Chattel Slavery can right- 
fully exist. 

I. There are no terms used in the Scrip- 
tures, which necessarily mean slave, slave- 
holders or slavery. 

In the Greek language, there are three 
words which may mean a slave, andrapodon, 
arguronetos, and doulos. The first of these, 
andrapodon is derived from aneer, a man, 
and pous, the foot, and signifies a slave and 
nothing but a slave. If this word had been 
used it would have been decisive, for it 
has no other signification but a slave ; but 



this word is found nowhere in the New Tes- 
tament. 

The second word, arguronetos, is derived 
from arguros, silver, and oneomai to buy, 
and hence it signifies to buy with silver ; or 
a slave, doubtless, from the fact that slaves 
were bought with silver. This word is no- 
where found in the New Testament. 

The third word, is doulos. This word oc- 
curs more than a hundred and twenty times 
in the New Testament, and may mean a 
slave, or a free person, who voluntarily 
serves another, or a public officer, represent- 
ing the public or civil authority. As the 
word occurs so frequently, it will be neces- 
sary to notice only a few instances in which 
it is used in its several senses. If the word 
properly means slave, it would be true to the 
original to translate it slave, where it oc- 
curs. 'I will first give a few instances in 
which it cannot mean slave. " On my ser- 
vants, [doulos'] and on my hand-maindens 
[doulee] I will pour out in those days of my 
spirit." Acts. ii. 18. 

Here the word is used to denote Christian 
men and women in general as the servants 
of God. It would read very strange to 
translate it slave ; upon my men slaves, and 
upon my female slaves will I pour out in 
those days of my spirit. 

" And now Lord, behold their threaten- 
ings : and grant unto thy servants that with 
all boldness they may speak thy word." 
Acts iv. 29. Here the word is used to de- 
note the apostles or preachers. It would 
be no improvement to translate it, grant 
unto thy slaves. " Paul, a servant of Jesus 
Christ, called to be an apostle." Eom. i.l. 
AVould it improve it to read, Paul the slave 
of Jesus Christ? 

" We preach not ourselves but Christ 
Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants 
for Jesus sake." 2 Cor. iv. 5. We preach 
ourselves your slaves for Jesus sake, would 
not only be without warrant, but it would 
make it conflict with Paul's declaration, 
that he was the slave of Jesus Christ. To 
be the slave of two distinct claimants at 
the same time is impossible. 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



461 



" James a servant [slave] of God, and of 
the Lord Jesus Christ." James i. 1. 

" As free, and not using your liberty for 
a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants, 
[slaves] of God." 1 Peter ii.' 16. 

" Simon Peter a servant [slave] and an 
apostle of Jesus Christ." 2 Peter i. 1. 

" Jude the servant [sfe-ue] of Jesus." 1. 

" And he sent and signified it by his an- 
gel to his servant [slave] John." Eev. i. 1. 

" Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor 
the trees, till we have sealed the servants 
[slaves] of our God in their foreheads." 
Eev. vii. 3. It is not impossible but this 
text may be urged in justification of the 
practice of slaveholders, of branding their 
slaves with the name of the owner. 

Enough has been said to show that the word 
doulos, does not necessarily mean slave, in the 
sense of chattel slavery. Indeed it is only in 
a few instances, out of the one hundred and 
fifty times in which it is used, that it can 
be pretended that it means slave. These 
cases shall be examined. But before reach- 
ing that point, the facts amount to almost 
a moral demonstration, that the inspired 
penman did not mean to spread a justifica- 
tion of human bondage upon the record. 
There was a word which appropriately ex- 
pressed a chattel slave which they have ne- 
ver used, but have always used a word which 
properly expresses the condition of free 
persons in the voluntary service of another, 
whether as a common laborer, a personal 
attendant, an agent, or a public officer, rep- 
senting some higher authority, human or 
divine. 

Is it not clear then that they did not de- 
sign to teach the rightful existence of hu- 
man chattelship. 

As the writers of the New Testament 
have not used the word andra'podon which 
most specifically signifies a slave, so have 
they not used the properly corresponding 
word, andrapodismos, which is the specific 
word for slavery. As they use the word 
doidos, for the man, the servant, which may 
denote a voluntary service, one employ-ed 
for pay ; so they use the derivative word 



douloo to denote the conditior, the service, 
servitude or bondage, which may also be 
voluntary. 

So, when speaking of rightful relations, 
they have never used the word andrapodis- 
tees, which signifies a slaveholder, one who 
reduces men to slavery, or holds them as 
slaves, and which corresponds to andrapo- 
don, a slave ; but have used the word des- 
potees, which signifies lord, master, or head 
of a family, without at all implying a chat- 
tel slaveholder. The proper word for a 
slaveholder, andrapodistees, occurs but once 
in the New Testament, 1. Tim. i. 10, 
where it is translated manstealers. 

JDespotees, the only word used which it 
can be pretended means slaveholder, occurs 
only in ten texts in the New Testament, in 
six of which it is applied to God, or to Je- 
sus Christ, and in four to men as masters. 
The cases in which it is applied to God or 
to Jesus Christ, are as follows : 

" Lord, [Bespotees^ now lettest thou thy 
servant, [doulos] depart in peace." Luke 
ii. 29. 

" Lord, [Despotees] thou art God." Acts 
iv. 24. 

" If a man therefore purge himself from 
these, he shall be a vessel unto hoQor, sanc- 
tified, and meet for his master's [despoteesl 
use." 2 Tim.ii. 21. 

" Denying the Lord [Despotees] that 
bought them." 2 Peter ii. 1. 

'' Denying the only Lord [Despotees] God.'* 
Jude 4. 

" How long Lord, [Despotees^ holy and 
true." 

The above use of the word shows that it 
does not signify a slaveholder, and from the 
examination of the several words concerned, 
it appears as though the apostles were so 
guided as to employ none of the words which 
belong properly to the system of chattel sla- 
very. The four remaining texts in which 
the word despotees occurs, are the texts 
which some suppose describe slavery, an*^ 
these shall all be examined in their place, i 
have thus far proved that the inspired wri- 
ters have not used one of the words which 



462 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. [BOOK III. 



unequivocally express chattel slavery, and 
the fact that there were such words in the 
language in which they wrote, and that 
they always avoided them, and ased words 
which properly denote free laborers, is very 
conclusive evidence that they never designed 
to endorse the system, if they knew anything 
about it, and lived and labored among it. 

II. The texts in which the words above 
examined occur, do not teach that chattel 
slavery can rightfully exist. 

A few of the texts need only be noticed, 
The strongest shall be selected, and if they 
do not justify slavery others cannot. 

" Let every man abide in the same calling 
wherein he was called. Art thou called, 
being a servant ? Care not for it ; but if 
thou mayest be free to use it rather. For 
he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, 
is the Lord's freeman : likewise also he that 
is called being free, is Christ's servant. Ye 
are bought with a price, be not ye the ser- 
vants of men. Brethren, let every man 
wherein he is called, therein abide with God." 
1 Cor. vii. 20-22. 

This text may refer to slavery, the per- 
sons here called servants, doulos, may have 
been slaves. It is not certain that they 
were slaves because they are called doulos 
for this term is often applied to free-persons 
who are merely in the employ of another 
The fact is admitted that slavery did exist 
in that country, and that the word doulos 
might be applied to a slave, just as our word 
servant, is used to denote any one who 
serves, whether voluntary or involuntary, 
free or bond. This is all the concession 
candor requires me to make, and in this lies 
all the proof there is that slavery is in- 
volved in the case. The text upon its face 
contains several things which are unfavora- 
ble to the idea that the persons treated of 
were chattel slaves. I urge two grounds 
of defence against any conclusion drawn 
from the text, that slavery is or can be 
right. 

I. It is not clear that the persons were 
slaves, to whom the apostle wrote. This is 
a vital point and must be positively proved ; 



nference or mere probability will not do in 
such a case. Here is a great system of hu- 
man bondage, sought to be justified, and of 
course, no text can be admitted as proving 
it right, unless it be certain that it relates 
to the subject. Now, where is the proof 
that this text certainly speaks of slaves. 

1. The use of the word, doulos, does not 
prove it, for that is applied to Jesus Christ, 
Paul and Peter, to all Christians, and to 
free persons who are in the employ of oth- 
ers, whether as public officers or mere labor- 
ers. 

2. The general instruction given does not 
prove that the persons addressed were slaves. 
The general instruction is for all to abide in 
the same calling they were in when convert- 
ed. The same principle is applied specifi- 
cally to husbands and wives, as well as to 
servants. The general instruction therefore 
does not prove that slaves are meant. 

3. The specific application of this instruc- 
tion to servants by name, does not prove 
that they were slaves. It might be neces- 
sary to give such instruction to free or hired 
servants. The Gospel was making inroads 
upon a heathen community, and it may be 
presumed that the greatest portion of the 
converts were among the lower classes and 
servants. If these servants were all to for- 
sake their positions and the employ of all 
unconverted employers, so soon as they were 
converted, it would not only produce confu- 
sion and much inconvenience, but bring 
Christianity into discredit and provoke per- 
secution. It would not only deprive many 
families of the requisite number of laborers, 
but would throw an equal number of labor- 
ers out of employ. 

4. The exception which the apostle makes 
to the specific application of his general rule 
to servants, does not prove that they were 
slaves. The exception is this, " But if thou 
mayest be made free, use it rather." This 
is doubtless the strongest point in support 
of slavery contained in the text, for those 
who must find slavery in it somehow, will 
at once say that it supposes that they might 
[not be able to be free, in which case they 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



463 



must be slaves. This is plausible, but it is 
not a necessary conclusion, and therefore 
cannot be allowed as establishing the right- 
fulness of slavery. It may refer to con- 
tracts and relations voluntarily entered into 
for a limited term of years, and for a price 
stipulated. Such cases exist in every com- 
munity, and where a considerable portion of 
an entirely heathen community, should sud- 
denly embrace Christianity, some of the con- 
verts would be found sustaining these rela- 
tions, and involved in these obligations to 
heathen parties entirely unfriendly to the 
spiritual interests of such converts. ISTow, 
though it would not be proper to violently 
rupture all such contracts on the conversion 
of one of the parties, though it would be a 
good general rule for every man to abide in 
his calling or occupation, yet where a re- 
lease could be peaceably obtained in any 
such case, it would be best to improve it. 
This is all that the text necessarily means, 
and this is rendered the more probable sense, 
from the fact that, if they were really slaves, 
and their state of slavery regarded as right 
in the light of the Gospel, the probability 
of obtaining a release would hardly be great 
enough to constitute the basis of a special 
apostolic rule. Indeed, the exposition is 
more consistent with the whole scope of the 
apostle's reasoning than any exposition that 
can be based upon the assumption that 
chattel slavery was the thing with which 
the apostle was dealing. 

II. Allowing that the text does treat of 
slaves, that the person named as " called 
being a servant," was a personal chattel, it 
does not prove slavery to be right, or throw 
over it any sanction, not even by implica- 
tion. The former exposition is doubtless 
the right one, upon the supposition that the 
persons were not slaves, but upon the sup- 
position that they were slaves, that exposi- 
tion is set aside, and one entirely different 
must be resorted to. No such exposition 
can be adopted as will make the text ap- 
prove of slavery. 

1. The direction, " let every man abide 
in the same calling wherein he is called," 



does not teach the duty of a voluntary sub- 
mission to slavery, upon the supposition 
that the direction was given to slaves ; and 
unless it teaches the duty of voluntary sub- 
mission to slavery, it does not and cannot 
prove slavery to be right. The words, " If 
thou mayest be free, use it rather," are just 
as positive and binding as the words, " let 
every man abide in the same calling," and 
allowing the words to be addressed to slaves, 
they command every Christian convert, who 
is a slave, to obtain his freedom if he can ; 
it leaves him no right to consent to be a 
slave, if he may be free ; if he has power to 
be free. 

The word here translated mayest is duna- 
mai and is tanslated in this case by too 
soft a term to do justice to the original in 
this connection. It is used to express a 
thing possible or impossible in the most ab- 
solute sense. It occurs in about two hun- 
dred and ten texts and is uniformly trans- 
lated can and with a negative particle con- 
not, able and not able, and in very few 
cases, not over five in all, it is rendered 
may ; once it is rendered might, and in only 
one case besides the text, is rendered mayest. 
That is Luke xvi. 2. " Thou mayest be no 
longer steward." Here a stronger word 
would do better justice to the sense. The 
word occurs in such texts as the following : 
*•' God is able of these stones to raise up 
children unto Abraham." Matt. iii. 9. 

" A city that is set on a hill cannot be 
hid." V. 14. 

" Thou canst not make one hair white or 
black." 36. 

" No man can serve two masters." vi. 
24. 

" But are not able to kill the soul." x. 
28. 

" From which ye could not be justified by 
the law of Moses." Acts xiii. 39. 

•' They that are in the flesh cannot please 
God." Kom. viii. 8. 

' To him that is of power to establish 
you. xvi. 25. 

The word is supposed to be derived from 
deinos, powerful, and hence in the expres- 



464 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



[BOOK III. 



sion, " If thou mayest be free," the sense is, 
if thou hast power to be free, if thou hast 
strength to be free, if thou art able to be 
free, if thou canst be free, " use it rather." 
There can be no doubt of this position 
that the text leaves those concerned no 
choice between slavery and liberty ; if it 
refers to slaves, it requires them to take and 
use their liberty if they can get it, leaving 
no right to remain in the condition of slaves 
any longer than up to the time they can be 
free. This is very important in two points 
of light. 

1. It is a most clearly implied condemna- 
tion of slavery as unfriendly to the develop- 
ment of Christianity in the heart and life 
This of itself proves that the text does 
not and cannot justify slavery. 

2. This positive command requiring the 
slave to take ai?d use his liberty, whenever 
he can get it, necessarily qualifies and limits 
what is said of abiding in the condition 
wherein they were called. " Let every man 
abide in the same calling where he was call- 
ed. Art thou called, being a servant? 
Care not for it, but if thou mayest be. made 
free, use it rather." The sense must be that 
the slave was to abide in slavery as a Chris- 
tian, until he could be made free, rather 
than to give up his Christianity on the 
ground that a slave must first be made free 
before he could be a Christian. The obli- 
gation was to be a Christian while he was 
compelled to remain a slave, rather than to 
remain a slave one hour after he could be 
free. To abide in the same calling wherein 
he was called, means that he should remain 
a Christian in that condition, until he can 
get out of it rather than waiting until he 
can get out of it before he undertakes to be 
a Christian. The fact that the slave is 
commanded to use his freedom if he can be 
made free, forbids any other construction 
than that which I have put upon the words 
The command to use his liberty if he can be 
made free, limits the command to abide as 
he was called, to the sense of submitting to 
slavery as an unavoidable evil, until he can 
get out of it in a manner consistent with the 



laws of Christianity. This is all the obli- 
gation that is imposed upon the slave, and 
this is not the slightest justification of slave- 
ry, for there is not a Christian anti-slavery 
man in the country, even the most ultra, 
who would not now give the same advice to 
all slaves in the land, could they speak in 
their ears. Advice or a command to sub- 
mit to a wrong which we have not power 
to prevent, is no justification of that wrong, 
" But I say unto you that ye resist not evil," 
is no justification of evil. The fact that 
" charity beareth all things," and " endur- 
eth all things," does not prove that all 
things thus borne and endured are right. 
So no command, were it ever so plain, to 
submit, ever so quietly to slavery, as a con- 
dition from which we have no power to 
escape, could be a justification of slavery 

It strikes me that we are compelled to 
this explanation of the text, to save the 
apostle from confusion and self contradic- 
tion, if we admit that he was really treating 
of chattel slavery. We cannot suppose that 
the apostle uses the same word in two or 
more different senses in the same most inti- 
mate connection, without giving any intima- 
tion of the fact ; if therefore we render the 
word douIo€, slave, instead of servant, we 
must preserve this rendering through the 
whole connection. In that case, the text 
will read thus : " Let every man abide in 
the same calling where he was called. Art 
thou called being a slave care not for it : 
but if thou mayest be made free use it 
rather. For he that is called in the Lord 
being a slave is the Lord's freeman : like- 
wise, he also that is called being free is 
Christ's slave. Ye are bought with a price ; 
be not ye the slave of men." 

This makes the apostle assert that a con- 
verted slave is a slave of man, and God's 
freeman at the same time. This is impos- 
sible, for if the obligations of slavery are 
morally binding on the slave, he cannot be 
free to serve God ; but if the slavery be an 
entire unmingled moral wrong, imposing no 
moral obligation on the slave, but only a 
physical restraint, then can the slave be 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



465 



God's freeman, just as clearly as he whose lyour masters, according to the flesh, with 
feet and hands should be paralized, could fear and trembling, in singleness of 'your 



still be God's freeman, his head and heart 
being still sound. 

Again, the assumption that the apostle 
is treating of chattel slavery, as the text is 
above rendered, makes him assert that the 
converted slave is God's freeman, and that 
the converted freeman is God's slave. If 
by servitude a voluntary state is meant, in 
which case there is no chattel slavery ; or 
if chattel slavery be understood, as a hu- 
man crime, inflicted upon them by force. 



imposing no moral obligation, then the 



heart, as unto Christ ; not with eye-service, 
as men pleasers ; but as the servants of 
Christ, doing the will of God from the 
heart ; with good will, doing service, as to 
the Lord, and not to men ; knowing that 
whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the 
same shall he receive of the Lord, whether 
he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do 
the same things unto them, forbearing 
threatening: knowing that your Master 
also is in heaven ; neither is there respect 



whole is consistent 

Finally, the idea that chattel slavery is 
involved, and that slaves are under moral 
obligation to submit to it, as per corres- 
ponding moral right on the part of the 
slaveholder to hold them as slaves, makes 
the apostle command them to abide in 
slavery and not to abide in it ; to be slaves 
and not to be at the same time. The 
sense must run thus, " Let every man abide 
in the same calling wherein he is called," 
that is, if a man is called being a slave, let 
him remain a slave ; but as " ye are bought 
with a price, be not ye the slaves of men.'' 
A more direct and palpable contradiction 
could not be perpetrated. But allow that 
there is no justification of slavery, that 
slaves are only directed to submit to it and 
bear it as a physical necessity which they 
have no power to escape, and the whole is 
plain and consistent, then may they be re- 
quired to abide in it, and endure all its 
wrongs as Christians, until provi-dence 
shall open a way for them to escape from it 
I have bestowed full attention to the 
above text, because it is believed to be one 
of the strongest in support of slavery, and 
because it is the first of the class with which 
T have undertaken to grapple. In dispos- 
ing of it, I have settled some principles, 
which can be applied in the consideration 
of other texts, without having to be again 



of persons with him." Eph. vi. 5-9. 



I. It is not certain that the persons here 
called servants, were chattel slaves; and 
that the persons called masters, were slave- 
holders. 

1. It does not follow that slaves and 
slaveholders are treated of from the terms 
employed. The word here translated ser- 
vants is douloi, the plural of doulos. That 
this word of itself does not prove that cha1>- 
tel slaves are meant, has been already suffi- 
ciently shown. 

The word masters is Icurioi, the plural of 
kurios. It has been sufficiently shown 
that this word does not necessarily mean a 
slaveholder. I will however, add two ex- 
amples of its use. 

The same Lord, {Kurios,) over all is 
rich unto all that call upon him." Eom. x. 
12. Here the word is used to denote the 
Supreme Kuler of all men. 

Sirs, {Kurioi, plural of Kurios,) what 
must I do to be saved." Here the word 
is used as no more than our English words. 
Sirs, Gentlemen, or Mister. The use of 
the word therefore, cannot prove that 
slaveholders are intended. 

2. The duties enjoined upon these ser- 
vants, does not prove that they were slaves. 
Not a word is said which will not apply as 
appropriately to free hired laborers as to 
slaves. 

(1.) The command to obey them that 
were their masters, does not prove the ex- 
istence of chattel slavery. This must fol- 
" Servants, be obedient to them that are low from two considerations. First, their 
30 



discussed at length 



466 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. [BOOK III. 



• obedience was limited to what was morally I 
right. This is clear from the fact that 
their obedience was to be rendered *' as the 
servants of Christ, doing the will of God 
from the heart." This limits obedience to 
the will of God, and makes the actor the 
judge of what that will is, which is incon- 
sistent with chattel slavery. Secondly, 
with this limitation, obedience is due to all 
employers, and all free persons who engage 
in the service of others, are bound to obey 
them, and carry out all their orders, ac- 
cording to the usages of the community, 
within the limits of the will of God, or 
what is morally right. Such a direction, 
to a community, newly converted from 
heathenism, and still intermingled with the 
unconverted heathen, must have been ne- 
cessary, and its observance essential to the 
reputation and further success of the Gos 
pel among them. It is clear then, that the 
simple command that servants obey does 
not prove that they were slaves. 

(2.) The qualifying words added to the 
word masters, " according to the flesh," do 
not prove the existence of the relation of 
owner and slave. The Greek word, sarx, 
here rendered flesh, literally signifies the 
human body in contradistinction from the 
spirit or mind. 

Matthew Henry construes it thus : 
« Who have the command of your bodies, 
but not of your souls : God above has do- 
minion over these." 

Dr. A. Clarke thus : " Tour master in 
secular things ; for they have no authority 
over your religion nor over your souls." 

Eev. A. Barnes, thus : " This is de- 
signed, evidently to limit the obligation. 
The meaning is. that they had control over 
the body, the flesh. They have the power 
to command the service which the body 
could render ; but they were not lords of 
the spirit. The soul acknowledges God as 
its Lord, and to the Lord they were to 
submit in a higher sense than to their mas- 
ters." Allow either of these expositions, 
and there can be no slavery made out of 
the text. If there be a limit to the slave's 



obedience, and if the slave is judge of that 
limit, as he must be, for the language is 
addressed to him, to govern his conduct, 
then there is an end to slavery. But if we 
understand freemen under contract to serve 
others, all is plain. 

(3.) The manner of rendering the obedi- 
ence required, does not prove the existence 
of chattel slavery. The manner was " with 
fear and trembling." 

The words, phobou Jcai tromou, fear and 



trembling, are capable of a great latitude 
of meaning, from absolute terror to a re- 
ligious veneration, or the respect due to 
any superior. The same expression occurs 
in two other texts. The first is 2 Cor. 
vii. 15, where Paul says of Titus, " with 
fear and trembling, pJiobou Jmi tromoUy 
ye received him." 

The other text is Phil. ii. 12 : " Work 
out your own salvation with fear and trem- 
bling, phobou kai tromou." In this text, 
fear and trembling means deep solicitude 
or apprehension. 

The Greek word phobou, which is the 
genitive singular oi phobos, is defined thus : 
" Fear, dread, terror, fright, apprehension, 
lalarm, flight, rout." If it be understood 
in its mildest sense, as fear in the sense of 
anxiety, reverence or respect, or apprehen- 
sion, in the sense of uneasiness of mind, lest 
by failing to obey, they should injure the 
reputation of the Gospel, it is all perfectly 
consistent with the position and duties of 
free hired servants. And this is all that 
the word necessarily means. The same 
word is used to express the respect which 
wives are required to manifest towards 
their husbands. " Wives be in subjection 
to your own husbands ; that if any obey 
not the word, they also may without the 
word be won by the conversation of the 
wives ; while they behold your chaste con- 
versation coupled with fear." 1 Peter iii. 
1, 2. Here the same word is used in the 
original translated fear. If the words, pho- 
bou kai tromou, be understood in any high 
er sense, which renders it inapplicable to 
free hired laborers, as dread, terror, or 



THE DUTIES OP MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



CHAP, v.] 

fright, it renders 

sistent with a Christian brotherhood, and 
makes the Scriptures contradict them- 
selves. 

3. The discrimination between bond and 
free, does not prove the existence of slavery. 
As an encouragment to faithful servants, 
Paul says, " whatsoever good thing any 
man doeth, the same shall he receive of the 
Lord, whether he be bond or free." This 
does not add the slightest force to the ar 
gument, for the word that is rendered bond 
is the same that is rendered servant in the 
5th verse. It is doulos ; doulos eite eleu- 
theros; bond or free. "Whether he be 
servant or free, would be a translation 
more in accordance with common usage. 
The word doulos, servant, occurs over one 
hundred and twenty times in the New 
Testament, and in every instance is trans- 
lated servant, save seven in which it is 
rendered bond. Four of the seven except- 
ions occur in the writings of Paul, and the 
text under consideration is the only one 
which can be supposed to justify slavery in 
any sense. The other three are as follows : 
'' For by one spirit are we all baptised 
into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles 
whether bond or free" 1 Cor. xii. 13. 
" There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither 
bond nor free." Gal. iii. 28. " And have 
put on the new man, which is renewed in 
knowledge after the image of him that ere 
ated him : where there is neither Greek nor 
Jew, circumcision or uncircumcision. Bar- 
barian, Scythian, bond nor free." Col. iii. 
10,11. If the word rfow/o.s, rendered bond 
in these texts, means a chattel slave, the 
thing cannot exist among Christians, and the 
Gospel abolishes the relation of master and 
slave, so soon as the parties are converted. 
The other -three cases in which the word 
doulos is translated bond, are in Revelations. 
They need not be examined, as they have 
no important bearing on the question. We 
see from the above the discrimination be- 
tween bond and free does not prove the ex- 
istence of chattel slavery, because it is 
perfectly appropriate to distinguish be- 



467 



the whole matter incon- tween men who are the servants of others, 
as hired laborers, and who are not. It 
only has the force of the word servant in 
contradistinction from one who is an em- 
ployer, or who labors for himself. 

4. The obligations imposed upon the mas- 
ters does not prove that they were chattel 
slaveholders, or that their servants were 
their chattel slaves. I know not how to 
reconcile what is said to the masters with 
the possibility that chattel slavery is in- 
volved. This however is not my part of 
the enterprise, my work is to show that 
what is said does not prove that slavery ex- 
isted, and if in doing this, I prove that it 
did not exist, it will be the result of the na- 
ture of the facts I have to deal with. Two 
things are commanded for which a reason 
is assigned. 

(1.) Masters are commanded to '' do the 
s.ame things unto them," that is to their 
servants. What is here meant by "the 
same things." It certainly refers to what 
had been said to servants. It will not ad- 
mit of a strict literal construction, for that 
would require the master to obey the ser- 
vant with fear and trembling ; it would be 
to put the servant and the master upon an 
exact equality in all things. This we know 
the apostle did not mean, and to attempt to 
ground an argument upon such a literal 
sense, would be to appear uncandid. " The 
same things," in the connection, literally 
means just what he had been telling the ser- 
vants to do, but from this we must depart, 
but we are not allowed to depart from the 
literal sense only so far as to reach a sense 
which will be in harmony with the general 
scope of the subject. Let us try it. Sup- 
pose we understand by the same things, 
that Paul merely meant to command mas- 
ters to act towards their servants, upon 
the same principles upon which he com- 
manded the servants to act towards them ; 
or in other words, that Paul meant to com- 
mand masters to pursue a course of conduct 
towards their servants, which correspond to 
the conduct which he had commanded the 
servants to pursue towards them. 



468 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



[book III. 



This strikes me as not anly a fair and 
liberal view, but as the only true view. A 
slaveholder cannot deny the fairness of this 
construction of the words. Now let me 
apply the principle. It will run thus : 

" Servants be obedient to them that are 
your masters." Masters give no oppressive, 
unreasonable, or morally wrong commands. 
Then must the servant be left free to serve 
his Grod, and discharge all the domestic du- 
ties of a husband, father, wife, mother, son 
or daughter. This would make an end of 
chattel slavery. 

Servants obey with fear and tremble, that 
is with all due respect for superiors. Mas- 
ters, treat your servants with all the gentle- 
ness and kindness that is due from a superior 
to an inferior. This even cannot be recon- 
ciled with chattel slavery. Servants, serve 
in singleness of heart, as unto Christ. Mas- 
ters, conduct yourselves towards your ser- 
vants with entire honesty, and pay them for 
their labor as doing it unto Christ. 

Servants, serve " not with eye-service as 
man pleasers, but as. the servants of Christ." 
Masters, do not treat your servants in the 
presence of others with apparent kindness to 
secure a good name, and then abuse them 
when there is no one to see or hear ; but treat 
them with the same honesty and purity of 
motive with which you serve Christ. 

Servants, obey as doing the will of God 
from the heart. Masters command and 
claim nothing which is contrary to the will 
of God. 

There is certainly no slavery in all this, 
but much which appears inconsistent with 
slavery. It would not be sufficient to say 
that it might refer to slavery, or that it might 
DC reconciled with slavery ; it must posi- 
tively mean slavery beyond a doubt, to be 
admitted as proof of the rightful existence 
of slavery in this land and age, for that is 
the real question. 

(2. Masters are commanded to forbear 
threatening. This does not prove that Paul 
was treating of Chattel slaveholders and 
slaves. This forbids all punishment, all 
chastimement. No construction can be put, 



upon the words which will make them less 
restrictive. 

The Greek word anieemi, here rendered 
forbearing, has a variety of significations 
and shades of meaning, among which are the 
following : " To remit, forgive, forbear ; to 
dismiss, leave, let alone ; to desert, forsake 
to let slip, omit, neglect." The word occurs 
but four times in the New Testament as fol- 
lows : Acts xvi. 26, where it is translated 
loosed. " Every one's bands were loosed." 
Acts xxvii. 40, it is again translated loosed. 
" They committed themselves unto the sea, 
and loosed the rudder-bands, and hoisted up 
the mainsail to the wind." Heb. xiii. 5, it 
is translated will leave, being accompanied 
with a negative, never. " He hath said, I 
will never leave thee nor forsake thee." 

The only remaining case is the text under 
consideration, where it is translated forbear- 
ing, threatening. There is seen to be noth- 
ing in the use of the word in other texts, to 
make it mean less here than a command 
not to threaten at all. He who threatens 
in any degree does not forbear threatening. 

The word, threatening, denotes the act of 
making a declaration of an intention to in- 
flict punishment. It is used in no other 
sense. It occurs but four times in the New 
Testament. Acts iv. 17 : " But that it 
spread no further among the people, let us 
straitly threaten them." The Greek words 
are, ajnlee apilesometha, a literal translation 
of which would be, " Let us threaten them 
with threatening." In the twenty-ninth verse 
it is said, " And now Lord behold their 
threatenings.'' The other text where the 
word occurs is Acts ix. 1 : " And Saul yet 
breathing out threatenings," apilees, threat- 
eningSo It is clear then that the word for- 
bearing, as used in the text, means not to 
do, or refrain from doing; anS the word 
threatening, means the making a declara- 
tion of a purpose to inflict punishment. 
The two words, therefore, as connected in 
the text, amount to a command not to 
threaten punishment. This by the most 
certain implication forbids the punishment 
itself. 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OP MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



5. The reason assigned for the commands 
given to the masters is very far from proving 
tliat they were slaveholders, or that their 
servants weve chattel slaves. This reason 
is thus stated, •' Knowing that your Master 
is also in heaven ; neither is there respect 
of persons with him." The word, Master, 
here is the same as in the direction, only 
liere it is singular, kurios, and there it is 
plural, IcurioL Translate it slaveholder 
and it would read thus : " Ye slaveholders, 
do the same things unto them ; knowing 
that your slaveholder also is in heaven." Or 
more correctly, " ye owners, do the same 
things unto them ; knowing that your oivn- 
er also is in heaven." Every one must 
know that this does not express the true 
sense of the apostle. The meaning is, that 
they were to conduct themselves justly and 
kindly towards their servants, or inferiors, 
because they were the servants of God, to 
whom they must render an account for their 
conduct. Now the word kurios not only 
means God as a name of the Supreme Be- 
ing, but it also signifies a ruler. It is de- 
rived from kuros, authority. Translate it 
•by ruler and the whole connection will be 
consistent- "And ye rulers do the same 
things unto them ; knowing that your ruler 
is in heaven." 

I have now shown that the text under 
consideration does not contain slavery, that 
it is not clear that it treats of the thing at 
all, and I will pass to notice briefly the sec- 
ond point. 

• II. If it were admitted that the text 
treats of slavery, it does not follow that 
slavery is right, for it in no sense justifies 
the necessary assumptions of a chattel slave- 
holder. 

1. The directions given to the servants is 
no more than might be given to chattel 
slaves as a means of promoting their own 
interests, without the slightest endorsement 
of the master's right to hold them. Sup- 
pose a man to be held wrongfully as a slave, 
without the power to escape from the grasp 
of his oppressor, what would a friend advise 
him to do ? Just what the apostle has com- 



manded in the case before us. I would say 
obey your master in everything that the law 
of Christianity will allow you to do; and 
obey with visible fear and trembling, for 
such a course is the only means of securing 
such treatment as will render life endurable. 
Self-interest would not only indicate such a 
course, but duty to God would demand it. 
Christians are bound to pursue a course, 
within the limits of what may be done, which 
will render their own lives most peaceful and 
comfortable, and enable them to be most 
useful to their fellow creatures in leading 
them to embrace the same blessed Chris- 
tianity, With a slave, unable to escape 
from his chains, such a course would be just 
the one pointed out by the apostle in the 
text under consideration. 

2. There is no justification of slavery found 
in the directions given to the masters, upon 
the supposition that they were chattel slave- 
holders. "Wliat they are commanded to do 
was undoubtedly right, but there is not a 
word said in these commands which implies 
that it is right to hold a fellow-being as a 
chattel slave. The argument for slavery 
does not depend so much upon what is said 
to the masters as upon what is not said, and 
upon assumed facts. The argument is this ; 
they were slaveholders, and members of the 
church, afid the apostle wrote to them, giv- 
ing rules for the regulation of their conduct 
as masters, and did not command them to 
emancipate their slaves, or forbid them to 
hold slaves. This, it is insisted, is an im- 
plied endorsement of slavery. This is the 
strongest form that can be given to the ar- 
gument, and in this shape I will meet it in 
this place. 

(1.) The. argument is unsound because it 
takes for granted the main point to be 
proved, viz : that they were really chattel 
slaveholders. The words do not prove that 
to be a fact. It is first taken for granted 
that slavery existed, and then the words are 
construed in the Hght of this assumption. 
As the words do not prove the existence of 
chattel slavery, it should be proved that it 
did exist, before it can be affirmed that the 



470 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



[book III 



apostle did treat of slavery, or that slave- 
holders were members of the church. 

(2.) If it be admitted that slaveholders 
were members of the church at the time this 
epistle was written, it will not follow that it 
is right. Many wrong practices found their 
way into the church, and many persons were 
acknowledged members of the church who 
did not conform in all matters to the doc- 
trines and precepts of Christianity. It is 
to be borne in mind that the best of the 
members were fresh converts from heathen- 
ism ; with all its darkness and corruptions ; 
that there was not pervading the communi- 
ty outside of the church, that general relig- 
ious light that now pervades the community 
outside of the church in this country, and 
that there were not there as many sources 
of light as there is now among us, and not 
the same general prevalence of education, 
and ChristiaTQ libraries containing the well 
defined fundamental principles of morality 
and human duty. Under such circum- 
stances, the church drawing her recruits 
from amid the dark corruptions of heathen- 
ism, by sudden converstions, she could not 
but be liable to a constant influx of dark- 
ness to be enlightened, and corruption 
to be purged out. 

In writing to the Corinthian church, 
" unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, 
to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus ;" 
Paul said, "Awake to righteousness and sin 
not ; for some have not the knowledge of 
God : I speak this to your shame." 1 Cor. 
XV. 34. 

The fact, then, that a slaveholder should 
be found in connection with such a church, 
would not prove slaveholding to be right 
without a specific endorsement. This com- 
pels the advocate of slavery to fall back upon 
the actual words of the apostle for proof that 
slavery is right, leaving no ground to infer 
that it is right, because he finds it in the 
church. But I have already proved that 
the words of the apostle contain no endorse- 
ment of slavery ; that in addressing servants 
concerning their duty, he sets up no claim 
of rights on behalf of the master, and that 



he only urges the rights of God ; and that 
in addressing masters, he makes no allusion 
to their rights as masters, but urges, on the 
ground of their accountability to God, a 
course of conduct entirely inconsistent with 
chattel slavery. If these slaveholders got 
into the church, so did other wrong doers get 
into the church, while Paul, in addressing 
these slaveholders as a specific class, com- 
manded them to pursue a course which 
amounted to an entire abolition of chattel 
slavery. Where, then, is the proof that 
slavery is right, upon the supposition that 
slaveholders were in the church ? 

If then slavery is not proved to be right 
by the fact that it was in the church, nor 
yet by the apostles' directions on the sub- 
ject, there is no proof in the text that it is 
right, allowing slavery to be the subject 
treated. 



" Servants, obey in all things your mas- 
ters according to the flesh ; not with eye 
service as men pleasers ; but in singleness 
of heart fearing God ; and whatsoever ye 
do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not- 
unto men ; knowing that of the Lord ye 
shall receive the reward of the inheritance ; 
for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that 
doeth wrong-, shall receive for the wrong 
which he hath done : and there is no re- 
spect of persons." Col. iii. 22-25. 

" Masters, give unto your servants that 
which is just and equal ; knowing that ye 
also have a master in heaven." Col. iv. 1. 

These texts, though quoted from difibrent 
chapters, constitute but one subject. The 
first verse of the fourth chapter belongs to 
the third chapter, and should not have been 
separated from it. 

This text is so nearly like Eph. vi. 5-9, 
in its language, which has already been ex- 
amined, that on several points it will only 
be necessary to refer the reader to what was 
said upon that text. There can be no doubt 
from the similarity of the two passages, 
both being written by the same hand, that 
they both relate to the same class of persons. 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



471 



I. It is not clear that the text was ad- 
dressed to slaves and slaveholders. 

1. It is not proved by the direction given 
to the servants. " Servants obey in all 
things your masters according to the flesh." 
This is the only point of difference between 
this and the former text, and it adds no 
force to the argument in support of slavery. 
To obey " in all things" can mean no more 
than to do everything which is command- 
ed, which does not conflict with the law of 
God, which is not a violation of the rules 
of the Gospel. 

This limitation of the servant's obligation 
to obey must destroy chattel slavery. The 
smallest reserve of the right of judgment, on 
the part of slaves, must destroy the founda- 
tion work of slavery. This was shown in 
the examination of the preceding text, and 
need not be further pressed in this place. 
It is clearly seen that no command to ser- 
vants, to obey their masters, can prove the 
existence of chattel slavery, which is not 
absolute, and without any reserve on the 
part of the servant, of the right of judging 
for himself what he may do, and what he 
may not do. If the servant may say, I will 
not sin when my master commands me to, 
or I will pray to God when my master com- 
mands me not to, there is an end of chattel 
slavery. 

2. The existence of slavery is not proved 
by what the apostle commands masters to 
do, " Masters, give unto your servants that 
which is just and equal." This does not 
prove that the apostle was addressing slave- 
holders. Here are persons called masters, 
and the first question in issue is, were they 
chattel slaveholders ? but a command to 
give to their servants " that which is just 
and equal," cannot prove it, for the same 
thing is required of all men towards all 
other men, with whom they have any deal 
or intercourse. It is only an application of 
a universal principle to a specific class, and 
it is just as applicable to hired laborers and 
apprentices, as it is to bond slaves. The 
very thing required does not and cannot ex- 
ist in a state of chattel slavery. Justice 



and equality are required, and they cannot 
exist in harmony with slavery, as will fully 
appear under my next argument. 

II. If it were admitted that the text was 
addressed specifically to slaves and slave- 
holders, it would not follow that slavery is 
right, inasmuch as it contains no justifica- 
tion of slavery. 

Waving all that has been said, let me 
now examine the text upon the supposition, 
it was addressed to men owners and men 
owned, and see if there is anything in it 
which can be tortured into a justification of 
the system. 

1. The justification is not found in the 
command to obey. This has been fully ex- 
plained and demonstrated in preceding 
arguments. It might just as well be argued 
that when Christ says, " If any man will 
sue thee at the law, and take away thy 
coat, let him have thy cloak also," he justi- 
fies the suing, and the taking of both, the 
coat and the cloak. 

2. The justification is not found in what 
the masters are commanded to do. Here I 
meet the point, effectually. If real slavery 
did exist there, the apostle commanded its 
abolition. This he did in these words : 
"Masters give unto your servants that 
which is just and equal." They were then 
first, to give their servants that which is 
just. But liberty is just and the natural 
right of every human being. 

But secondly, the apostle commanded 
them to give their servants that which is 
equal. The Greek word isoteeta, which is 
the accusative case of isotees signifies equal- 
ity. It is derived from isos, which signifies 
equal, on a level, equal to or equivalent : 
hence isotees which is derived from it, signi- 
fies equality, parity, equity, impartiality. 
The word here used occurs in but one other 
text in the New Testament. It is 2 Cor. 
viii. 14, in which it occurs twice in the same 
verse, and is translated equality in both 
cases. If the reader refers to the Greek 
Testament, he will find the first occurrence 
of the word in the 13th verse, as the first 
half of the 14th verse in the English version, 



472 



THE DUTIES OP MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. [BOOK III 



is attached to the 13th in the Greek. The 
apostle then commands slaveholders to give 
to their slaves equality, or parity This 
certainly must destroy the chattel principle, 
and secure to the laborer a just compensa- 
tion for his labor. 

I will here quote from Eev. A. Barnes' 
notes on the text, as his remarks fully cover 
this point. He says : " They were to ren- 
der them that which is just and equal. 
What would follow from this if fairly ap- 
plied ? What would be just and equal to 
a man in those circumstances ? Would it 
be to compensate hun fairly for his labor ; 
to furnish him an adequate remuneration 
for what he earned ? But this would strike 
a blow at the root of slavery, for one of the 
elementary principles, is, that there must be 
unrequited labor 

" If a man should in fact, render to his 
slaves that which is just and equal, would 
he not restore them to freedom ? Have they 
not been deprived of their liberty by injus- 
tice, and would not justice restore it ? What 
has the slave done to forfeit his liberty ? If 
he should make him equal in rights to him- 
self, or to what he is by nature, would he 
not emancipate him ? Can he be held at 
all without a violation of all the just notions 
of Equity. Though, therefore it may be 
true that this passage only enjoins the ren- 
dering of what was just and equal in their 
condition, yet it contains a principle which 
would lay the axe at the root of slavery, 
and would lead a conscientious Christian to 
the feeling that his slaves ous^ht to be free." 



" Let as many servants as are under the 
yoke count their own masters worthy of all 
honor, that the name of God and his doc- 
trine be not blasphemed. And they that 
have believing masters, let them not despise 
them, because they are brethren ; but rath- 
er do them service, because they are faithful 
and beloved, partakers of the benefit." 1 
Tim. vi. 1, 2. 

I. It is not sufficiently certain that the 
text treats of slaves and slaveholders, so as 
to render it a conclusive argument in sup- 



port of the rightful existence of slavery. 
The whole ground has been gone over in the 
examination of other texts, with the excep- 
tion of two additional points, which this text 
presents, viz : that some servants were under 
the yoke, and some had believing masters. 

If slavery is not found in one or the other 
of these points, it is not found in the text, all 
other points having been already examined. 

1. The" Greek word, zugon, here render- 
ed yoke, does not mean slavery. It literal- 
ly means the yoke by which oxen, horses 
and mules are coupled together for draught. 
Hence it means anything that joins two 
things together. It may be used in a me- 
taphorical sense. The use of a word in a 
metaphorical sense, cannot determine what 
the thing is to which it is applied, since the 
known character of the thing to which it is 
applied, alone can determine in what meta- 
phorical sense the word is used. If it were 
first proved that servants were slaves, it 
would follow that yoke, as applied to them, 
means slavery, but that is so far from being 
the case, that the application of the word 
yoke to them, is relied upon to prove that 
they were slaves, and the whole argument 
must fall. It is reduced to a circle, thus : 
They were slaves because they, were under 
the yoke, which means slavery. The term 
yoke means slavery, as applied to them, be- 
cause they were slaves. Such arguments 
prove nothing. 

2. There is no other instance in the New 
Testament, in which the word is used to 
denote anything like slavery. It is used in 
only six instances. In one, Eev. vi. 5, it 
is used with strict reference to its literal 
sense. It is here translated a " pair of 
balances," because the two parts are fast- 
ened together by the beam. In every other 
case it is used metaphorically. Christ uses 
it twice. Matt. xi. 29, 30, " Take my yoke 
upon you." " My yoke is easy." Here it 
means the moral obligations of the Gospel. 
As though he had said, take the profession 
and duties of my religion upon you. There 
is no slavery in this, though there are obli- 
gations which bind them to Christ. The 



CHAP. Y.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



473 



same word is found Acts xv. 10, " Why 
tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon tlie 
necks of the disciples." Here it means the 
obligations of the Mosaic law, not slavery. 

The other text is Gal. v. 1, " Stand fast 
therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ 
hath made us free, and be not entangled 
again with the yoke of bondage." Here 
the yoke of bondage is the obligations of the 
Mosaic law. Yoke means obligation, and 
bondage means service. It would be just 
fts good a translation to render it, " be not en- 
tangled again with the obligation of service." 

Apply these facts to the text under con- 
sideration, and there will be no slavery in 
it. " As many servants as are under the 
yoke," understand obligation, by yoke, for 
it means anything that binds or couples to- 
gether, and it will be plain. " Let as many 
servants as are under obligation." 

But the Greek word, hosos, rendered " as 
many as" — for these three words in the En, 
lish text come from the one in Greek^s 
not translated in its only admissable sense. 
Dr. McKnight renders it whatever. " What- 
ever servants." It often has this sense, but 
this does not exhaust its meaning. The fol- 
lowing are the principal senses in which the 
word is used : Of size, " as great as ;" of 
quantity, •' as much as ;" of space or dis- 
tance, " as far as ;" of time, " as long as ;" 
of number, " as many as ;" of sound, " as 
loud as." It is used of time in six texts in 
the New Testament, Matt. ix. 15 : " Can 
the children of the bride-chamber mourn as 
long as the bridegroom is with them." 

Mark ii, 19 ; " As long as they have the 
bridegroom with them they cannot fast." 

Eom. vii. 1 : ^' The law hath dominion 
over a man as long as he liveth." 

1 Cor. vii. 39 : " The wife is bound by 
the law as long as her husband liveth." 

Gal. iv. 1 : " The heir, as long as he is 
a child, differeth nothing from a servant." 

2 Peter, i. 13 : ''I think it meet, as long 
as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up." 

Give the word the same sense in the 
text under consideration, and it will read, 
" As long as servants are under obligation 



let them count their own masters worthy of 
all honor." There is certainly but httle 
slavery in the text in this form, and it is 
perfectly clear that there would never have 
been any in it, had not the translators and 
readers first originated slavery in their own 
minds, to make zugon mean the yoke, that 
is, the bondage of chattel slavery. 

If then there is no slavery in the yoke, 
or in being under the yoke was there any 
in the fact that some had believing masters ? 
Surely not, for if the unbelieving were not 
chattel slaveholders, it cannot be pretended 
that the believing masters were. If the 
servants of the unbelieving, blaspheming 
masters were not slaves, it can not be sup- 
posed that the servants of the believing 
masters were. 

II. If the above argument be all thrown 
aside, and it be admitted that the servants 
under the yoke were chattel slaves, it will 
not follow that slavery is right. There is 
no justification of slavery in the text* upon 
the supposition that slavery is the thing 
treated of. Let it be borne in mind that I 
must not now reason upon the principles of 
my exposition of the text given above, 
that is based upon the assumption that 
there was no slavery in the case. In ad- 
mitting that slavery existed, and that Paul 
treated of it, for the sake of th« argument, 
I must set that exposition aside, and fall 
back upon the pro-slavery glass. Where 
then, I demand, is the proof that slavery is 
right, that Paul sanctioned it ? 

1. It is not found in the fact that Paul 
commanded the servants under the yoke to 
" count their own masters worthy of all 
honor." The only reason assigned for the 
command, is " that the name of God a,nd 
his doctrine be not blasphemed." There is 
no intimation that the masters had a right- 
ful claim upon them, but they were wicked 
men, who, if their Christian servants did 
not render to them obedience and respect, 
would blaspheme the name of the Chris- 
tian's God and oppose Christianity. But 
why did not Paul command these wicked 
masters to emancipate their slaves, if he 



474 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. [BOOK III. 



condemned, or did not mean to sanction 
slavery ? The answer is plain. 

(1.) He was not writing to them, but to 
Timothy concerning the church. 

(2.) H e had no power or influence over 
these wic ked heathen masters to command 
them. 

(3.) Such a command, concerning them, 
would have produced the very thing his 
direction concerning servants was designed 
to prevent. It would have been an occa- 
sion of their blaspheming the name of God 
and his doctrine. 

2. No sanction of slavery is found in the 
directions given to those servants who had 
believing masters. This verse comes far 
short of expressing the full sense of the 
original. The present form of the text ap- 
pears to intimate that servants were in 
danger of despising their masters because 
they were brethren, whereas, the fact that 
they were brethren in no sense tended to 
produce such a result, but is a good reason 
for not despising them, and is so designed 
by the apostle. This will be made plain 
by rendering the Greek word, hoti, for 
which is now rendered because. " Let them 
not despise them for they are brethren.' 
It is so translated in more than two hun 
dred and twenty-five texts. 

The word partaJcers, does not begin to 
express the force of the Greek word, antil 
amhanojnenai, from which it is translated, 
This word is compounded of anti, in turn, 
lampano, to take, or receive, and hence the 
compound word as used by the apostle, 
means partakers in turn. Dr. Clarke ren- 
ders it "joint partakers," but his rendering 
is not as strictly in accordance with the 
original as mine. 

The word translated benefit is euergesia, 
which literally means well doing, good con- 
duct. It occurs in but one other text, 
Acts iv. 9, where it is translated, " good 
deed done." Now let me read the verse 
according to these renderings. 

" And they that have believing masters 
let them not despise them, for they are 
brethren, but rather do them service be-, 



cause they are faithful and beloved, par- 
takers in turn of the well doing." 

This clearly makes the last clause refer 
to the servants, as faithful and beloved par- 
takers in turn of the benefit of their own 
labor ; that is, they were paid for their 
service. This removes all the difficulty 
that critics have met with in this part of 
the text. Dr. McKnight affirms that ben- 
efit, cannot refer to Gospel benefit or sal- 
vation, and Dr. Clarke agrees with him, 
but intimates that it may refer to the ben- 
efits the servants receive from their mas- 
ters, but has failed to explain how. Eev. 
A. Barnes denies that it can refer to the 
fact that the master receives the benefit of 
the servants labor, because that can be no 
special motive to the servant to serve faith- 
fully, the force of which all must feel. He 
therefore construes it to mean the benefit 
which the Gospel imparts ; the very thing 
which Drs. McKnight and Clarke deny. 
The advantage of my translation is, it es- 
capes both these difficulties besides being 
more in accordance with the sense of the orig- 
inal, making the true sense to run thus : Let 
them not despise them, but rather let them 
do them service, because they, the servants, 
are faithful and beloved, partakers in turn 
of the well doing, by receiving a fair com- 
pensation for their labor. I have no doubt 
this is what Paul meant, and surely it was 
entirely free from any direct or implied 
sanction of chattel slavery. 



The Epistle of Paul to Philemon. 

Paul was a prisoner in Rome, and Phil- 
emon is supposed to have been an inhabi- 
tant of Colosse. Paul wrote him a letter 
by a person named Onesimus, in which the 
following words occurred, concerning the 
bearer : 

" I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, 
whom I have begotten in my bonds ; which 
in time past was to thee unprofitable, but 
now profitable to thee and to me ; whom I 
have sent again : thou therefore receive 
him, that is my own bowels ; whom I 
would have retained with me, that in thy 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



475 



stead he might have ministered unto me 
in the bonds of the Gospel ; but without 
thy mind would I do nothing ; that thy 
benefit slfould not be as it were of neces- 
sity, but willingly. 

" For perhaps he therefore departed for a 
season, that thou shouldest receive him for- 
ever ; not now as a servant, but above a 
servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, 
but how much more unto thee, both in the 
flesh, and in the Lord ? If thou count me 
therefore a partner, receive him as myself 
If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee 
aught, put that on mine account ; I Paul 
have written it with my own hand, I will 
repay it : albeit I do not say to thee how 
thou owest unto me even thine own self 
besides. Yea, brother, let me have joy of 
thee in the Lord : refresh my bowels in the 
Lord. Having confidence in thy obedience 
I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt 
also do more than I say." 

I. The evidence relied upon to prove the 
main facts in support of slavery is wholly 
insufficient. The points involved shall be 
noticed in order. 

1. Ouesimus was the servant of Phile- 
mon. That he was a servant is implied, 
not aflarmed. It is said, " that thou shouldst 
receive him forever, not now as a servant, 
[doulon) but above a servant, a brother 
beloved." It is freely admitted that these 
words imply that Onesimus had been 
a servant, but this is no proof that he 
was or had ever been a slave. It has been 
proved in a preceding argument that the 
word here used, doulos, does not necessarily 
mean a slave, but is used to denote free 
hired laborers, ministers and public officers. 
The reader is referred to the inquiry into 
the meaning of this word on page 460. 
Onesimus may then have been a free man 
in the employ of Philemon, or he may have 
been bound to him, as a minor by his pa- 
rents or guardians, or he may have bound 
himself to serve for a time, and have taken 
up his wages in advance, and then run 
away. Any of these suppositions are 
much more reasonable than to suppose he 



was a slave. The fact that he is called a 
servant, doulos, does not and cannot prove 
that he was a slave, for Paul declares him- 
self to be the servant of Christ, and also 
the servant of the church. 

2. Onesimus run away from Philemon, 
or left his employ improperly and without 
his consent. This is not affirmed, but is 
too clearly implied to be denied. But this 
does not furnish the slightest proof that be 
was a slave, for slaves are not the only per- 
sons that run away. That he went oflp in 
Philemon's debt is more than probable, 
from the expression of St. Paul, " If he 
hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, 
put that to mine account." The wronging 
spoken of must have been of a property na- 
ture, or it could not have been changed 
even to Paul. A crime or moral wrong 
could not be changed over to Paul. It is 
certain therefore that Ouesimus must have 
borrowed money of Philemon, in which 
case he would have owed him, or he must 
have taken up his wages, or received his 
pay in advance on a contract for service 
which he left without performing, in which 
case he would have wronged him, besides 
owing him. The whole face of the epistle 
goes much further to prove such a depart- 
ure from pecuniary obligations, than from 
chattel bondage. 

3. Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon, 
which is regarded by the advocates of slave- 
ry as a proof positive, not only that he was 
a slave, but that it is right and a solemn duty 
to return all fugitive slaves to their masters. 
This is all an unfounded assumption. There 
is no proof that Paul sent him back, in the 
only sense in which a fugitive slave can be 
sent back to his master. One great fact 
settles this point, which is this, however 
clearly it may be seen that Paul sent him 
back, it is equally clear that Onesimus went 
voluntarily, of his own free will and accord. 
This clearly proves that there could have 
been no coercive servitude in the case. 

(1.) The expression, " whom I have sent 
again," is not conclusive proof of an au- 
thoritative and coercive sending. I will 



476 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



[book III. 



save the labor of a criticism, by quoting 
from the Kgv. A. Barnes. That able writer 
says, " It is commonly assumed that his re- 
tm-ning again was at the instigation of the 
apostle, and that this furnishes an instance 
of his belief that runaway slaves should be 
sent back to their masters. But, besides 
that there is no certain evidence that he 
ever was a slave, there is as little proof that 
he returned at the instigation of Paul, or 
that his return was not wholly voluntary on 
his part. For the only expression which 
the apostle uses on this subject (verse 12), 
whom I have sent again — anapempa — does 
not necessarily imply that he even proposed 
it to him, still less that he commanded it. It 
is a word of such general import, that it 
would be employed on the supposition that 
Onesimug desired to return, and that Paul, 
who had a strong wish to retain him, to aid 
him in the same way that Philemon himself 
would do if he were with him (comp. ver. 13,) 
had, on the whole, concluded to part with 
him, and to send him again, with a letter, to 
his friend Philemon. There is nothing in 
the statement which forbids us to suppose 
that Onesimus was himself disposed to re- 
turn to Philemon, and that Paul 'sent' 
him at his own request." 

(2.) The apostle had no means of send- 
ing him back against his own choice. There 
were no marshals to seize and chain fugitive 
slaves and carry them back to their masters. 
There was no provision for paying the ex 
penses of a forcible return out of the public 
treasury, including the chartering of vessels 
and the employment of companies of dra- 
goons. Rome was more than a thousand 
miles from Collosse, where Philemon resided, 
to whom Onesimus is supposed to have been 
sent, and when we consider that there were 
no steamboats, railroads, mail lines, and ex- 
presses by which boxed up negroes can now 
be sent, it must be perfectly certain that 
Paul could not liave returned Onesimus 
against his will, without an armed govern- 
mental express, which Eome was never mean 
enough to provide for the return of fugitives 
from bondage. Nor can it be supposed 



that Paul could have secured any such ar- 
rangement, had the thing been possible in 
itself, for he was at the time a prisoner in 
bonds. 

(3.) The fact that Onesimus was made 
the bearer of a letter setting forth Paul's 
wishes, and urging Philemon to receive him 
kindly, is irresistible proof that it was all a 
voluntary operation on the part of Onesi- 
mus. Despatched with a communication on 
a journey of more than a thousand miles, he 
must often have had opportunity to have 
escaped. 

(4.) To assume that necessity impelled 
him to return to a chattel bondage, on the 
ground that he could not provide for his 
wants, without a master to do it for him, is 
too absurd to be made the basis of an argu- 
ment. He was capable of making his es- 
cape, and of finding his way to Rome, which, 
at that age, was more than it would now be 
for a man to work his way around the world. 
Paul declares it desirable for him to retain 
Onesimus to administer to him in his bonds. 
It must be clear therefore that in Rome he 
was capable of doing more than merely to 
provide for his own wants, he was capable 
of doing that, and assisting Paul in ad- 
dition. 

(5.) The supposition that Onesimus re- 
turned to a state of chattel bondage, as a 
moral duty required by the Gospel, is the 
last and hopeless resort of the advocates of 
slavery. It has been shown that no other 
power could have accompanied, to conduct 
him safely to his former home against his 
own will. He willed himself to return, or 
he never would have found his way back. 
Will it then be said that by being con- 
verted under the labors of St. Paul, he be- 
came so thoroughly convinced that slavery 
was right, and that Philemon had such a 
right of property in him, as to render it his 
moral and Christian duty to return to the 
condition of a chattel bondman, as a means 
of glorifying God and saving his soul ? No- 
thing else can be said, and to say this, is to 
abandon the argument, besides contradicting 
the universal consciousness of mankind. 



CHAP, v.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



47T 



It abandons the argument, because it gives 
up the point that Paul sent him back again 
a fugitive slave, against his own will. The 
moment it is claimed that Onesimus returned 
from a sense of moral obligation, the idea 
of coercive slavery vanishes, and the most 
essential element of American Slavery is 
blotted from the record. In that case there 
was no slavery involved, except such as was 
submitted to by the slave from choice, since 
he had it in his power to have avoided it 
had he thought best so to do. 

But to suppose that Onesimus went back 
to chattel bondage from a sense of moral 
obligation, is to contradict the universal 
consciousness of mankind. No man ever 
did believe, or can believe that it is right 
that he should be held as a chattel slave. 
Every man's consciousness within himself, 
tells him that he has a right to himself ; 
that his head and feet, and hands, and ears, 
and eyes, and tongue, and heart, and soul 
belong to himself, and are not, and cannot 
be the property of another. If Onesimus 
-was converted to a belief that he was the 
rightful property of another, then has the 
Gospel lost its power, for no such conver- 
sions take place in these times. The most 
pious slaves in the south would escape from 
their masters, did they know how to effect 
it. 

II. There is much proof upon the face 
of the record that no slavery was involved 
in the relation that existed between Phile- 
mon and Onesimus. 

1. The simple fact that Paul so earnestly 
exhorted Philemon to receive Onesimus, is 
proof positive that the latter was not re- 
turnirg a chattel slave, for no class of men 
have to be so earnestly entreated to receive 
their lost property when it is returned to 
them. Here the apostle talk, " I beseech 
thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have 
sent again ; thou therefore receive him, that 
is mine own bowels." Yerse 10, 12. Again 
in verse 17, he says, "If thou count me 
therefore a partner, receive him as myself. 

2. The offer of Paul to assume the pecu- 
niary responsibilities of Onesimus to Phile- 



mon, proves that the former was not a chat- 
tel slave. His words are, "If he hath 
wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that 
on mine account. I, Paul, have written it 
with mine own hand, I will repay it." Yerse 
18, 19. The thing supposed here, is utterly 
impossible in the case of a chattel slave. A 
slave cannot owe. 

III. If it were admitted that Onesimus 
was a lawful chattel slave, when he ran 
away, it would be clear from the langifage 
of the epistle, that Paul did not send him 
back as a slave, but commanded his free- 
dom to be given him. To contend that he 
was a slave, must prove fatal to the right 
of slavery, since Paul clearly and unequivo- 
cally ordered his emancipation upon the 
supposition that he was a slave. 

The apostle specifies to Philemon too 
plainly how he was to receive Onesimus, to 
be misunderstood and in such terms as to for- 
ever exclude chattel slavery from the relation. 

1. He was to receive him " not now as a 
servant, but above a servant." Suppose 
then that he was a slave, and that the word 
here used, doulos, means slave, and the whole 
clause will read thus : " Perhaps he there- 
fore departed for a season, that thou shouldst 
receive him forever ; not now as a slave but 
above a slave." Is not this m"aking an end 
of all slavery in the case. It certainly is, 
unless it can be proved that a man can be 
a slave, and above a slave at the same time. 

2. Paul instructed Philemon to receive 
Onesimus as he would receive him. His 
words are, " If thou count me therefore a 
partner, receive him as myself." Yerse 17. 
Here it is plain that Philemon was exhorted 
to receive Onesimus as he would have re- 
ceived Paul himself. Then must he have 
received him as an equal, as a Christian 
brother, as a fellow laborer, and if so, he 
could not receive him or regard him as his 
slave. 



" Servants, be subject to your masters 
with all fear ; not only to the good and 
gentle, but also to the froward. For thig 
is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience 



478 



THE DUTIES OP MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



[book III. 



toward God endure grief, suffering wrong- 
fully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be 
buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it pa- 
tiently ? but if, when ye do well, and suffer 
for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable 
with God. For even hereunto were ye 
called : because Christ also suffered for us, 
leaving us an example, that ye should follow 
his steps." 1 Peter ii. 18-21. 

We here meet with a new word rendered 
servant, not found in any of the preceding 
texts. It is oiketai, and its first and literal 
meaning is, "an inmate of one's house." 
It is derived from oiJcos, a house, and hence 
an inmate of one's house, a household ser- 
vant. The words of the apostle apply to 
such servants as were employed as domes- 
tics, servants, whose business was in the 
house. It does not prove that they were 
slaves, but only that they served in the 
house, whether bond or free. 

Most of the terms have been explained 
in remarks made upon other texts. The 
expression, " subject with fear," has been 
explained sufficiently, in remarks offered 
upon Eph. vi. 5, where the expression " fear 
and trembling" occurs. 

An examination of what is peculiar to 
this text, will show that it does not prove 
the existence of slavery, and that it does 
not justify it upon the supposition that it did 
exist. No directions are given to masters, 
and hence it is fair to suppose the class of 
persons referred to, were not members of 
the Church. Some of them we know were 
not, for they are represented as " froward," 
and as inflicting grief upon the servants, 
" conscience toward God." Such persons 
were not Christians, and if they held slaves 
it would not prove it to be right. But some 
are represented as "good and gentle," and 
were not they members of the Church and 
Christians ? There is no proof that they 
were. The Greek word agathos, good, does 
not mean a Christian, nor goodness in a 
moral sense. It is applied to all kinds of 
nouns, and means only that the noun is 
good in its kind, as " good gifts, good tree, 
good things, good treasure, good fruits, good 



works, good days, good ground." In this 
text it qualifies masters, understood, and 
good masters are not necessarily Christians, 
or members of the church. Nor does the 
word " gentle" imply that they were Christ- 
ians. The Greek word epieiJcecs, means not 
only gentle, but mild, patient, moderate. It 
occurs five times in the New Testament. 
Once it is translated " moderation ;" (Phil, 
iv. 5 ;) once it is rendered " patient ;" (1 
Tim. iii. 3 ;) and three times it is rendered 
gentle. These three cases are Titus iii. 2, 
and James iii. 17, and 1 Peter ii. 18. There 
is then no proof that the masters referred 
to were members of the Church, but evi- 
dence that they were not. If they were 
slaveholders, therefore, it is no proof that 
slavery is right. If we look at the direc- 
tions given to the servants, they neither 
prove the existence of slavery, nor yet that 
it is right, if it did exist. 

The only point involved in these instruc- 
tions, which has not been sufficiently met, 
is the fact implied that the servants were 
liable to be buffeted. This word kolaphizo, 
buffet, more properly means to box the ears 
with the hand, but may denote beating of 
any kind. The fact that they were liable 
to be beaten does not prove that they were 
slaves, for the following reasons : 

1. Beating was a common punishment 
inflicted for minor offences, upon free per- 
sons as well as upon slaves. That custom 
has come down to our own times, and though 
it is now nearly abolished, persons are still 
punished at the whipping post for minor 
offences in some of these States. 

2. Christians generally were liable to be 
buffeted at that time, and even the apostles 
themselves were buffeted. Paul says, " Even 
unto this present hour, we both hunger and 
thirst, and are naked and are buffeted." 1 
Cor. iv.ll. At a time when all Christians, 
and especially ministers were liable to be 
buffeted, the fact that servants were liable 
to be buffeted, cannot prove that they were 
slaves. 

3. The advice of the Apostle has often 
been applicable, and called for, in our day, 



^i^AP. v.] 



THE DUTIES OF MAN TO MAN, AS MAN. 



479 



where no slavery existed. Children and ap- 
prentices have often been buffetted in the 
free States of this free country, on account 
of their religion, not only by infidels, but by 
members of churches, because their children 
persisted in attending the meetings of a differ- 
ent denomination from the one they preferred. 
If such things can occur in a Christian com- 
munity, it must be plain that the fact that 
servants were liable to be buffeted among 
heathen, cannot prove that they were slaves. 

But allowing that they were slaves, there 
is not the slightest proof that slavery is right. 
The Apostle does not endorse the buffeting 
in any case, not even where it is inflicted for 
wrong doing. The buffetin^g referred to is 
of two kinds, that which is inflicted on ac- 
count of the wrong doing of the servants, 
and that which is inflicted on account of 
their well doing, or without their fault. 

Suppose then slaves do wrong, and are 
buffeted for it, still the buffeting may be as 
wrong as the conduct for which it is inflict- 
ed. A wrong act may be wrongfully pun- 
ished. The directions of our Saviour, in 
relation to smiting and resisting evil, must 
settle the question that no Christian can be 
justified in smiting a fellow Christian, the 
buffeting therefore must be wrong, though 
provoked by the wrong doing of the ser- 
vant. The liability therefore of slaves to 
be buffeted, if slaves they were, or the fact 
that they were buffeted, cannot prove that 
slavery is right. The fact that Peter cau- 
tioned them against provoking the wrath 
of their wicked heathen masters, nor yet 
the fact that he gave them to understand 
that there would be no special virtue in 
bearing the buffeting patiently, after having 
provoked it by bad conduct, cannot be con- 
strued into a justification of slavery nor 
even of the buffeting. 

But they were liable to be buffeted when 
they did well, and this proves that it was 
wicked men and a wrong state of things of 
which the Apostle was treating, and no jus- 
tification for slavery, or anything else can 
be interred from the conduct of such men 
This further appears from the fact that Pe- 



ter appeals to the suffering of Christ as an 
example, which was wrongfully inflicted. 
Allowing them to have been slaves, the fact 
that the Apostle exhorts them not to pro- 
voke punishment, and to bear it patiently 
when they do well and yet are- buffeted, ap- 
pealing to the sufferings of Christ to en- 
force his exhortation, no more proves that 
they were rightfully held as slaves, than 
the fact that Christ suffered patiently, proves 
that his sufferings were rightly inflicted. 

I have now done, for though I have not 
examined every text that some may be dis- 
posed to urge in support of slavery, I have 
examined all the most important ones, so 
that, if those I have examined do not prove 
the rightful existence of slavery, it cannot 
be pretended that there are other texts that 
will prove the point without them. In the 
argument I have kept two points in view, 
namely, the texts relied upon to support 
slavery, do not prove that it ever existed 
in the Church, and that, if it did exist, they 
do not prove it is right. Here I rest, and 
will close my argument with the words with 
which a more brilliant writer commenced his 

" The spirit of slavery never seeks shelter 
in the Bible of its own accord. It grasps 
the horns of the altar only in desperation — 
rushing from the avenger's arm. Like other 
unclean spirits, it hateth the light, neither 
cometh to the light, lest its deed#should be 
reproved. Goaded to Phrenzy in its con- 
flicts with conscience and common sense, de- 
nied all quarter, and hunted from every co- 
vert, it vaults over the sacred enclosure, and 
courses up and down the Bible, seeking rest 
and finding none. The law of love, glow- 
ing on every page, flashes around it an om- 
nipresent anguish and despair. It shrinks 
from the hated light, and howls under the 
consuming touch, as demons quailed before 
the Son of God, and shrieked, ' Torment 
us not.' * * * Its asylum is its sep- 
ulchre ; its city of refuge the city of des- 
truction. It flies from light into the sun ; 
from heat into devouring fire ; and from 
the voice of God into the thickest of his 
thunders." 



480 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



[book IV 



BOOK IV. 



THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AND ITS INSTITUTIONS. 



CHAPTER I 

VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND CHURCH 
GOVERNMENT. 



SECTION I. 

Visible Church Organization Explained 
and Defended. 

I. There is clearly a distinction between 
the "Church of Christ, and a Church of 
Christ. 

The Church of Christ includes all the 
redeemed of every age, in earth and in 
heaven. A Church of Christ is a single 
congregation of Christians. The term 
church, in the Scriptures, is sometimes used 
to denote all Christians — the whole of the 
redeemed. It is used in this sense, Heb. 
xii. 23 : " To the General Assembly and 
Church of the first-born, which are written 
in heaven." 

Eph. i. 22, 23 : " And hath put all things 
under his feet, and gave him to be the head 
over all things to the church, which is his 
body, the fullness of him that filleth all in 
all." 

Eph. V. 27 : " That he might present it 
to himself a glorious church, not having 
spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing ; but 
that it should be holy and without blem- 
ish." 

Col. i. 18, 24 : " And he is - the hea,d of 
the body, the church ; who is the beginning, 
the first-born from the dead ; that in all 
things he might have the pre-eminence. Who 
now rejoice in ray sufferings for you, and fill 
up that which is behind of the afflictions of 



Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which 
is the church." 

In all these texts, by the Church, we are 
beyond all doubt, to understand all Chris- 
tians, of every age and country, as well as 
those already in heaven. This is what is 
sometimes called the invisible, universal 
Church. 

But the term Church is more commonly 
used, in the New Testament, to denote a 
single congregation of persons who meet 
together regularly in one place, for worship 
and the proDiotion of the interests of Chris- 
tianity. There is no such thing as a de- 
nominational church, embracing all who 
subscribe to a particular creed, and wor- 
shipping in a thousand different places, scat- 
tered over an entire continent. The term is 
never used in this sense in the Scriptures, 
but it is always used to denote all Chris- 
tians, or a single congregation. If it means 
less than all the saved in any one text, it 
never means more than a single congrega- 
tion ; and if it means more than a single 
congregation, it never means less than all 
Christians. The following considerations 
may serve to settle the question. 

1. The New Testament writers uniformly 
speak of the churches, and not of the church, 
thereby clearly teaching that in those early 
times, a church was a single congregation. A 
few illustrations will suffice on this point. 

Acts ix. 31 : " Then had the Churches 
rest throughout all Judea, and Calilee, and 
Samaria." 

Chap. xiv. 23 : " And when they had 
ordained them elders in every church." 

Chap. xvi. 5 : " And so were the churches 
established in the faith, and increased in 
number daily." 



CHAP. T.] 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



481 



Eom. xvi. 4 : " Who have for my life 
laid down their own necks : unto whom not 
only I give thanks, but also all the churches 
of the Gentiles." 

1 Cor. vii. 17 : " Bot as God hath dis 
tributed to every man, and as the Lord hath 
called every one, so let him walk : and so I 
ordain in all churches." 

2 Cor. xi. 8 : " I robbed other churches, 
taking wages of them to do you service." 

Gal. i. 22 : " And was unknown by face 
unto the churches of Judea which were in 
Christ." 

Eev. i. 4 : " John to the seven churches 
which are in Asia." 

In Asia there were then seven churches. 

2. The term Church is so frequently used 
in the New Testament in connection with 
certain places, and with such qualifyin, 
terms, as necessarily to imply no more than 
a single Christian assembly. 

Acts viii. 1 : " And at that time there 
was a great persecution against the church 
which was at Jerusalem : and they were 
all scattered abroad throughout the regions 
of Judea and Samaria, except the Apos- 
tles." 

Chap. xi. 26 : " And when he had found 
him, he brought him unto Antioch. And 
it came to pass, that a whole year they as- 
sembled themselves with the church and 
taught much people. And the disciples 
were called Christians first in Antioch." 

Chap. xiv. 27 : " And when they were 
come, and had gathered the church together, 
they rehearsed all that God had done with 
them, and how he had opened the door of 
faith unto the Gentiles." 

Eom. xvi. 1 : " I commend unto yon 
Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the 
church which is at Cenchrea." 

Yerse 5 : " Likewise greet the church 
that is in their house." 

Yerse 23 : " Gains my host, and of the 
whole church." 

Here Gains is declared to be the host of 
the whole church. 

1 Cor. i. 2 : " Unto the church of God 
which is at Corinth, to them that are sanc- 
31 



tified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, 
with all that in every place call upon the 
name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs 
and ours." 

This text clearly distinguishes '' the church 
of God which is at Corinth" from " all that 
in every place call upon the name of Jesus 
Christ." 

This proves that the disciples at Corinth 
constituted a Church. 

Chap. xi. 18 : " For first of all, when ye 
come together in the church, I hear that 
there be divisions among you ; and I partly 
believe it." 

Chap. xiv. 23 : " If therefore the whole 
church be come together into one place, and 
all speak with tongues, and there come in 
those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will 
they not sa.y that ye are mad ?" 

Col. iv. 15 : " Salute the brethren which 
are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the 
church which is in his house." 

These texts are sufficient to show that the 
Apostles contemplated Christians as organ- 
ized into churches, according to their res- 
pective localities, and not as all belonging 
to one general visible organization, under 
one general rule of discipline in matters not 
commanded in the word of God. It is seen 
from the above that there was a church at 
Cenchrea, and another at Corinth. These 
two places were but a few miles distant from 
each other. This clearly proves that a 
church at that time consisted of a single 
congregation. 

3. The best ecclesiastical authority con- 
firms the above doctrine of the indepen-^ 
dence of the primitive Christian congrega- 
tions. 

Lord King says the Synods were com- 
posed in part of " deputed laymen, in behalf 
of their respective churches." 133. 

Mr. Wesley says, " Originally every Chris- 
tian congregation was a church independent 
of all others." Yol. 3, p. 363. 

Mr. Watson says, " Through the greater 
part of the second century, the Christian 
churches were independent of each other." 
Dictionary, Article, Cnurch. 



482 



VISIBLE CEURCH ORGANIZATION. 



[book IV. 



Dr. A. Clarke says, " In the proper use 
of this word there can be no such thing as 
THE church exckisively ; there may be a 
church, or the churches." Matt. 26, in fine, 

Any amount of authority might be quo- 
ted on this point, but it is not necessary 
It has been introduced as the necessary 
starting point, and will of necessity be in- 
volved and further illustrated in the pro 
gress of the investigation. 

II. By visible church organization is 
meant an organization or association of 
Christian persons, in a manner which pre- 
sents to the eye of each, and to the eye of 
the surrounding world, a church, the precise 
limits of which may be known, visible in its 
parts, and visible as a whole. 

To organize a church, is for a number of 
Christian persons, voluntarily, understand- 
iugly, and visibly to recognize each other as 
Christians, and to agree to be a church ; to 
appoint, in some way, the necessary officers 
of a church, for the purpose of enjoying 
the immunities and doing the work of a 
church of Jesus Christ, in accordance with 
his will as taught in the New Testament. 
Such church, thus organized or associated, 
is composed only of such persons as have 
been recognized by the church, and have 
agreed to be members of the same, and does 
not include all who may believe in Christ, 
residing in the place or vicinity, who have 
not been recognized by the body, and who 
have not agreed to be members of the said 
visible organization or association. Fur- 
thermore, such church, thus organized, has 
a right to admit or recognize such other per- 
sons as members as they may judge worthy, 
and to expel or disown such members as 
they may judge unworthy, according to the 
law of Jesus Christ. 

The above are the points to be proved in 
vindication of visible church organization ; 
but the argument will be better understood 
after a distinct statement of the opposing 
views, which will of necessity be refuted if 
the above be established. The propositions 
stated above concerning church organiza- 
tion, are denied by two classes. The first, 



directly and in so many words, denies all 
visible church organizations, affirming that 
Christians have no right to organize them- 
selves into churches. The second class does 
it indirectly, by affirming that all true Chris- 
tians in a given locality are members of and 
constitute the church of that locality, with- 
out reference to their being known to each 
other, having recognized each other as 
Christians, or having agreed to be a church 
or to belong to a church. 

The propositions above, which affirm the 
validity of visible church organization, are 
based upon a distinction between the gene- 
ral invisible church of Christ, and a local 
visible church, while these converse propo- 
sitions clearly overlook and deny such dis- 
tinction. To illustrate and confirm the 
reality of such distinction, then, will be to 
establish the validity of visible church or- 
ganizations. 

That all Christians, all who are justified 
by faith, are members of Christ's (general 
invisible) church, can not be denied ; but 
that all belong necessarily to some local 
church, such as Paul referred to when he 
said to Philemon, " the church that is in 
thy house," is a very different matter. The 
distinction between the two is clear and 
marked. 

1. A person becomes a member of the 
general invisible church by virtue of his 
faith in Christ, and becomes a member when 
he is converted ; but a person becomes a 
member of a local visibly organized church, 
by being and consenting to be recognized 
as a member of such church. 

2. A person can not cease to be a mem- 
ber of the general invisible church, but by 
ceasing to be a Christian ; but a person 
may, and often does of necessity, cease to 
be a member of a local visibly organized 
church, by removal, and in passing from 
one church to another, as persons are wont 
to do by letter — for which we have Apos- 
tolic authority, as Paul speaks of " epistles 
of commendation to," and " letters of com- 
mendation from." 2 Cor. iii. 1. A church 
exists in one place, and in another there is 



CHAP. I.] 



VISIBLE CHURCH OEGANIZATION. 



483 



no church. A pious individual resides in 
that place where there is no church. He 
belongs to no visible local church, no Chris- 
tian congregation ; he belongs to the church 
of no place on earth ; and yet he belongs 
" to the general assembly and church of the 
jBrst-born who are written in heaven." This 
proves that to belong to the general church 
and to the church in a given place are two 
distinct things. 

3. The general invisible church cannot 
receive members into its own body — cannot 
discipline its members ; men cannot take 
persons into or shut persons out of the gen- 
eral invisible church ; but a local church 
can receive persons into or put persons out 
of their own body. Paul commanded the 
church at Corinth (1 Cor. v. 13,) to exclude 
a person, when he said, " put away from 
among yourselves that wicked person." He 
must have been a member of that local 
church, as they had no control over those 
without, and could not put them away ; and 
at the same time he could not have been a 
member of Christ's general spiritual invisi- 
ble church, or Paul would not have com- 
manded them to put him away, for that 
would have been requiring them to reject 
those whom Christ did not reject. Again 
the Apostle (2 Cor. ii. 7, 8,) commanded 
them concerning this same person, to for- 
give him and to confirm their love towards 
him — which was to receive him back again, 
as they had put him away from among them 
in obedience to his former command. This 
proves that he had become a member of 
Christ's general invisible church, without 
becoming a member of that particular 
church, for Paul would not have command- 
ed them to receive one whom Christ reject- 
ed, while his direction proves that they had 
not yet received him ; so he must have been 
a member of the general invisible church, 
without being a member of the local church 
of the place where he resided. We have 
no right to recognize as Christians those 
whom Christ rejects, and to reject those 
whom Christ receives — which proves, be- 
yond the power of contradiction, that per- 



sons must be members of the general invis- 
ible church first, as a condition of, and qual- 
ification for, becoming members of a local 
visible church, and that they must cease to 
be, or prove that they are not members of 
the general invisible church, before they 
cease to be members of their respective local 
visible churches, as a reason for disowning 
them and excluding them from visible mem- 
bership. This appears to make the distinc- 
tion plain between the visible and invisible 
church. 

4. It may be known who belongs, and 
who does not belong to a local visible church. 
It must be known, to discharge the func- 
tions of a church, and to exercise the moral 
discipline which the Scriptures require. But 
it cannot be known, positively, who are 
members of the general invisible "church. 
Some may be members of it whom we re- 
ject, and some may not be members whom 
we receive, as we may err in judging of 
the evidence presented by a good man, and 
be deceived by the skilful hypocrisy of a 
bad man. Thus we can see who belongs to 
a local organization called a church, but we 
cannot see who belongs to the general church 
of Christ ; hence the one is called the visi- 
ble church, and the other the invisible 
church. Into a local visible church, persons 
are received by being recognized as Chris- 
tians, and members, in some way, by such 
church, on profession and public evidence ; 
but into the invisible church persons are re- 
ceived by the act of God, in which he for 
Christ's sake forgives them their sins, and 
bestows on them the spirit of adoption, upon 
their actual repentance and genuine faith in 
the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ, their 
Mediator and Eedeemer. 

5. The general invisible church is one and 
indivisible ; it is essentially a unit, and com- 
prehends all the redeemed without distinc- 
tion of periods, dispensations, races, nations, 
distance or place, while local visible churches 
are many, existing in many places, and may 
be composed of persons of different races 
and nations, speaking different languages, 
rendering them totally incapable of under- 



484 



VISIBLE CHURCH OKGANIZATION. 



[book IV. 



standing and communicating with each oth- 
er, unless it be through an interpreter. The 
doctrine of the visible unity of the church 
has, until recently, been considered as pe- 
culiar to papacy, but is now taken by per- 
sons in an opposite extreme, and wielded 
as a weapon to destroy all visible church 
organizations, which furnishes an instance 
in which the two extremes come nearest to- 
gether. 

6. The general invisible church, as above, 
is one and only one everywhere, while there 
may be two or more local visible churches 
in the same place. If all Christians in a 
given place necessarily constituted the 
church of that place, there could be but one 
church in a place, and that would be neces- 
sarily and absolutely one and indivisible. 
This would involve several difficulties. In 
an evenly populated country, it would be 
impossible to fix any limits to a church, for 
there would be no one place of distinctly 
marked limits, less than the whole territory. 
It is not to be presumed that the artificial 
civil divisions, such as states, counties, and 
towns, are particularly regarded by the Ho- 
ly Ghost in the organization of the church 
of Jesus Christ, distributing Christians in 
churches of different places, precisely ac- 
cording to these civil divisions of a coun- 
try. It must therefore appear certain that 
no limits can be set to a church, if all the 
Christians of a given place are members of 
the church of that place, without being 
recognized or received by the church. Who 
can tell where, in the mind of God, one place 
ends and another begins ? Suppose an is- 
land six miles square to be inhabited by 
Christians ; it is said they constitute the 
church of that island. Well, suppose the 
island to be twenty miles long and ten 
broad, evenly populated by Christians ; do 
they all still constitute the one church of 
that island ? If not, how many churches 
are there ? If all Christians are members 
of the church of their place or vicinity, 
without reference to formal reception or vis- 
ible organization, by what rule can you de- 
termine how many churches there are on 



the island, and precisely where the lines run 
which divide them one from another ? If 
there is still but one church, suppose the is- 
land to be a hundred miles long, and it can^ 
not be pretended that there is but one 
church, unless it be contended that the world 
contains but one church. How, then, are 
we to determine how many churches there 
are on the island, and where the lines run 
that divide them, without reference to visi- 
ble organization ? It is impossible. Take 
a real case : There was a church at Corinth, 
and another at Cenchrea, which was near 
to the former place — Cenchrea being a sea- 
port of Corinth. There all the Christians 
in the same vicinity did not belong to the 
same church. But who can tell to which 
church those belonged, who lived half- 
way between Corinth and Cenchrea, which 
were but a few miles distant from each 
other, if all Christians are members of the 
church of their respective places, without 
reception or reference to visible organiza- 
tion ? 

But there may be more Christians in a 
given place than can meet in one assembly, 
and be instructed and watched over by one 
minister, in which case there must be two 
churches, two ministers, and two different 
congregations, which involves a visible or- 
ganization, and a clear distinction between 
the general invisible church and a local vis- 
ible church. 

Again : The Christians of a given place 
may be of different nations, and speak lan- 
guages so dissimilar as not to be able to un- 
derstand each other, in which case they can- 
not worship and co-operate together, and 
must sit under a difierent ministry, and con- 
stitute distinct churches. Unless Christians 
of the same place, in such a case, form dif- 
ferent churches, it is not possible to see what 
practical end can be secured in this world, 
by the existence of a church. There may 
be the English church, and the French 
church, and the German church, and the 
Welch church, and still other churches, all 
in the city of New York ; indeed there 
must be, to secure the advantages of a 



CHAP. I.] 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



485 



church to all, if there are so many classes 
of Christians who cannot understand each 
other. There may, then, be more than one 
church in a given place, which clearly proves 
a distinction between the general invisible 
church, which is one and indivisible, and 
local visible churches, which are many, in 
various places, and may present a plurality 
in what is called the same place. 

Will the reader not now admit that the 
denial of the validity of visible church or- 
ganization, as explained above, is the result 
of overlooking the distinction between the 
general invisible church and a local visible 
church of a given place ? This distinction 
having been made plain, the way is prepared 
for more direct arguments in vindication of 
visible church organization. 

III. Yisible church organizations are es- 
sential to an efficient development of the 
principles, and to the attainment of the ends 
of Christianity in this world. 

It must be difficult to see how the great 
ends of Christianity can be secured, as set 
forth in the ISTew Testament, without such 
a concert of action, and combmation of ef- 
fort as must necessarily involve what is 
meant by visible organization. It should 
be borne in mind that this argument is not 
based upon any specific form of church or- 
ganization, but upon its fact in some form. 
Yisible church organization does not neces- 
sarily depend upon written creeds and dis- 
ciplines for its existence. Were it contended 
that written disciplines are essential to the 
highest degree of efficiency, still it would 
not follow that they are essential to the ex- 
istence of visible organizations. A church 
might exist without a record, though it 
would not be the most desirable state of 
things. Suppose, then, a number of per- 
sons in a given locality meet together as 
Christians ; they make no record of their 
meeting and prepare no roll of names ; they 
make no positive agreement to be a church, 
but only act towards each other in a man- 
ner which implies that they mutually ac- 
knowledge each other as Christians, and as 
though they believed that they were the 



church or a church of that place. Suppose 
after they had held these regular meetings 
for a time, two persons more should essay 
to join them and take part in their worship 
and business, and they should, in some way, 
treat one of them in a manner to convince 
him and the public that they acknowledge 
him to be one of them, and in some way 
treat the other in a manner to convince him 
and the public that they do not acknowledge 
him to be one of them ; suppose further that 
one should take upon himself to preach when 
they come together, and the rest take upon 
themselves to hear him ; it is true they make 
no bargain with him, but when he has 
preached, some two or three of the most in- 
telligent persons invite him to preach again, 
and all the rest hear it, and no one objects, 
and he continues to preach ; it is true they 
do not hire him, but it so happens that be- 
tweea them all they give him what is nec- 
essary to support him, and some one takes 
it upon himself to speak to others on the 
subject, and collect what they are willing 
to give for his support ; suppose some one 
of their number commits some offense 
against morality, and immediately they all 
treat him in such a manner as convinces 
him and the public, that they no longer ac- 
knowledge him as one of their number ; final- 
ly, they act so that it is obvious that they 
consider that they, a certain number of per- 
sons, known and understood, are the church 
or a church, and that none others but them- 
selves belong to it ; suppose all these things, 
and you have a visible organization. It is 
not constructed upon the most approved 
mode, but it is as much a visible organiza- 
tion as though it had a written discipline 
and a hired minister for a stipulated salary, 
and kept a record of all its proceedings. 
It differs only in form and manner of doing 
things, but the essential principles of a visi- 
ble organization are there, and the essential 
acts are performed. 

They have not a written agreement to as- 
sociate together as a church, nor have they 
made a direct verbal agreement ; but they 
have tacitly entered into such an agreement, 



486 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



[book. IV- 



and confirmed it over and over again by 
their actions. They have no written roll 
of members, but they know and constantly 
acknowledge a certain number of persons 
as members, and disown all others. They 
have not voted any person into or out of 
their association, but they have done what 
amounts to the same thing ; they have vir- 
tually expelled one by no longer treating 
him as a member, and beginning to treat 
him as though he was not a member ; and 
they have virtually received another, by no 
longer treating him as no member, and by 
beginning to treat him as though he were a 
member. It is true they do not hire a min- 
ister, or employ one by a formal vote, but 
they receive the services of one, and give 
him as much as would pay a hired minister. 
Where these things exist, we have a visible 
church organization ; and where these things 
do not exist, there cannot be a practical and 
efficient development of the principles of 
Christianity, nor can the highest ends of 
Christianity in this world be attained, as will 
now be shown. 

So far as associate action is necessary to 
carry out the principles of Christianity, and 
to secure its ends, visible organization is in- 
dispensable, for there can be no well con- 
certed and well directed associate action, 
without such settled principles of organiza- 
tion, and such an understanding of the par- 
ties that are to co-operate, and the part 
they are to act, as amounts to a visible or- 
ganization. A few illustrations will be 
sufficient to exhibit the point and force of 
this argument. 

1. Christianity requires us to maintain 
rational and pure Christian fellowship, for 
our mutual comfort and edification ; but it 
is not easy to see how this can be done with- 
out coming to such a mutual understanding 
of what are the principles and who are the 
qualified subjects of Christian fellowship, as 
will mark our constant and permanent fel- 
lowship by the limits of a distinctly marked 
and visible association, the members of 
which are known, in contradistinction from 
all others who are not members. It may 



be said that those who insist on visible 
church organization, do not confine their 
fellowship to those who are members of 
such an organization with themselves. This 
is true ; and it is no doubt the duty of Chris- 
tians to extend and enjoy Christian fellow- 
ship beyond their own circle or visible 
church relations, as proper objects and oc- 
casions present themselves. But calls for 
these acts are only occasional and incident- 
al ; but such occasional acts are not a dis- 
charge of the general duty of maintaining 
constant fellowship, which cannot be done, 
only through the more settled arrangements 
of organized society. 

2. Nearly allied to the duty of maintain- 
ing Christian fellowship, is that of keeping 
ourselves separate from sinners. We are 
commanded to "come out from among 
them," and to " be separate." (2 Cor. vi. 
17.) This forbids us to fellowship sinners. 
The design, doubtless is not only to escape 
the contagion of corrupt morals, but to 
make the separation between the church 
and the world distinct and visible, and there- 
fore make the light and piety of the church 
more powerful in reproving sin than they 
would be if they were indiscriminately min- 
gled together. This command cannot be 
obeyed, and this end cannot be secured, on- 
ly by making the separation between the 
church and the world clear and marked, not 
only to their own eyes but also to the eyes 
of the world, enabling every beholder to 
say this man is one of them, and that man 
is not one of them ; and this cannot be at- 
tained but by a visible organization, into 
which persons are received, and from which 
they are excluded, not only in fact, but in 
the use of some visible form. 

3. Mutual watch care, instruction, and 
support are one great object which Christi- 
anity seeks to secure by the institution of a 
church and church relations. These are 
confined to the church, and the Gospel 
makes provision for their enjoyment only 
within the pale of the church. Acts xx. 
17, 28 : " And from Miletus he sent to 
Ephesus, and called the elders of the church, 



CHAP. I.] 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



48T 



and said unto them : take heed unto your- 
selves, and to all the flock over which the 
Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to 
feed the church of God." They were made 
overseers not of the world, but of the church ; 
to feed, not the world but the church of 
God. This shows that though it is the duty 
of Ministers and Christians to strive to en- 
lighten and warn sinners, and do all they 
can to bring them to a knowledge of the 
truth, yet mutual watch care, instruction, 
and support are provided for by the Gospel 
only within the pale of the church, and to 
render the mutual duties and privileges in- 
volved distinct and clear, the relations must 
be rendered distinct by making the church 
a distinct and visible body, a visible organ- 
ization. 

4. The Gospel requires us to maintain 
regular and orderly assemblies for public 
worship, at proper places and seasons, 
which must require such pre-concerted ar- 
rangements ; such a settlement of general 
principles in relation to place, time, and or- 
der ; such an appointment of managers or 
officers, and such a discharge of official du- 
ties on the part of some individuals, who 
must act for and in behalf of the whole, as 
cannot be attained only by a well defined 
and visible organization. For the main- 
tenance of the worship of God we have not 
only the example of the pious in all ages, 
but the clear injunctions of the word of 
God. Promises are made with reference to 
devotional assemblies, and precepts require 
us to maintain them. Matt, xviii. 20 : 
" Where two or three are gathered together 
in my name, there am I in the midst of 
them." This text clearly implies the exis- 
tence of organized Christian society. No 
one can suppose that this promise has refer- 
ence to a mere accidental meeting of two or 
three disciples who may happen to cross 
each other's path at the same time and place, 
as they are pursuing after other objects. 
To claim the promise there must not only 
be a gathering together, an actual meeting, 
but it must be in the name of Christ, which 
implies previous arrangement and associate 



action, for the joint maintenance of Chris- 
tian worship and fellowship. Heb. x. 25 : 
" Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves 
together, as the manner of some is ; but ex- 
horting one another, and so much the more 
as ye see the day approaching." This is a 
positive command, for the maintenance of 
social meetings for mutual Christian im- 
provement, which can never be carried out 
without concert of action, and previous ar- 
rangements in relation to time and place, 
and rules for the government of the assem- 
bly when in actual session, all of which tak- 
en together, constitute what is meant by a 
visible organization. 

It is too plain to need proof that a con- 
gregation cannot assemble regularly for the 
worship of God, and the transaction of such 
business as is necessary for the maintenance 
of the worship of God, without an organiza- 
tion so far as is implied in the selecting of 
officers, determining who belong to the con- 
gregation and who do not, in a sense to give 
them a right to take part in its proceed- 
ings, and the settling among themselves 
what the Scriptures require, and what they 
do not require, in order to rational, orderly, 
and spiriti*al worship. 

5. The maintenance of a healthy moral 
discipline is, beyond all doubt, required by 
the Gospel, and is one of the important ends 
for which churches are instituted. As this 
will be involved in a subsequent argument, 
in another form, it need not be enlarged upon 
here ; it is enough to say that discipline 
cannot be exercised and maintained, only so 
far as the church is a distinct and visible 
association, rendering it plain who are with- 
in, and who are without its pale. The 
church is bound to exercise discipline over 
those " within," but has nothing to do " to 
judge those without." (1 Cor. v. 12, 13.) 
This cannot be done unless members are 
visibly received and visibly excluded, by a 
visible act or decision of the church, and 
this renders the church a visible organiza- 
tion. 

6. The spread of the truth and the con- 
version of the world are leading objects of 



488 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



[book IV. 



organized Christianitys "We do not mean 
that tlie character and responsibility of the 
individual Christian is lost in the organism, 
but that the organism is the medium of con- 
centrating, combining, and giving greater 
efficiency to the efforts of individual Chris- 
tians. The Gospel enjoins private duties, 
as praying in secret ; and personal and so- 
cial duties, as to our families and neighbors ; 
but it does not contemplate the conversion 
of the world by the discharge of these duties 
alone. When it looks forth to the conver- 
sion of the world, it contemplates associate 
and combined effort ; and to have well di- 
rected associate action, there must be visi- 
ble associations, with visible organs or agen- 
cies, which the actors can see, and upon 
which they can lay their hands, and guide 
their means and efforts along their way to 
their intended results ; and this cannot be, 
but through visible church organizations. 
" How shall they call on him in whom they 
have not believed ? and how shall they be- 
lieve in him of whom they have not heard ? 
and how shall they hear without a preacher ? 
and how shall they preach except they be 
sent ?" (Rom. x. 14, 15.) And we may 
ask, how shall all this exist without such 
action on the part of the church as neces- 
sarily involves organization? If men are 
sent to preach the Gospel to the heathen 
world, they must be sent by somebody ; and 
we know no one proper to send persons with 
the important message of the Gospel, unless 
it be God or his church. Well, we think it 
will not be maintained that God sends men, 
or has sent men since Paul was sent, only 
through the agency of the church in some 
form ; and it is not possible to see how the 
church can do it, without assuming a visi- 
ble form, and performing an organic act, 
which involves a visible organization. Our 
next argument will be founded upon specific 
Scriptural examples and directions for re- 
ceiving persons into the church. 

lY. The Scriptures provide for visible 
church organization, by furnishing rules for 
receiving members into this Church. 

If all believers are members of the local 



church where they reside, without any for- 
mal reception or recognition by the church, 
then it must follow that the church has no 
power to receive or to exclude, and further, 
that there can be no such thing as a visible 
association or organization called a church. 
On the other hand, if members become such 
by any visible act of reception or recogni- 
tion, on the part of the church, there must 
of necessity be a visible organization into 
which they are received. 

We say, then, that the Scriptures contain 
examples, and distinctly lay down rules for 
the reception of members into the church. 
The visible church of any place, as it was 
in Jerusalem, must be a well-known, distinct 
body. Acts ii. 41 : " Then they that gladly 
received his word were baptized ; and the 
same day there were added unto them about 
three thousand souls." Yerse 47 : " And 
the Lord added to the church daily such as 
should be saved. The expressions, " added 
unto them" and " the Lord added to the 
church," suppose some public form, or some 
method of recognition in which it was done. 
It is not possible otherwise to see how the 
fact of their additions could be distinctly 
known and recorded. Acts iv. 23 : '• And 
being let go, they went to their own com- 
pany, and reported all that the chief priests 
and elders had said unto them." This proves 
that the church at this period, even in its 
infancy, was a distinct body known to its 
own members. Acts v. 12, 13 : " And 
they were all with one accord in Solomon's 
porch, and of the rest durst no man join 
himself unto them." This is very clear 
proof that, at that time, the church was a 
distinct company to become a member of 
which required some open, voluntary act. 

Acts ix. 26, 27, 28 : " And when Saul 
was come to Jerusalem, he essayed to join 
himself to the disciples ; but they were 
afraid of him, and believed not that he was 
a disciple. But Barnabas took him and 
brought him to the Apostles, and declared 
unto them how he had seen the Lord in the 
way, and that he had spoken to him, and 
how he had preached boldly at Damascus 



CHAP. I.] 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



489 



in the name of Jesus. And lie was with 
them coming in and going out at Jerusa- 
lem." Here we have recorded a mere inci- 
dent which arose out of the natural opera- 
tion of society ; and similar incidents are 
liable to occur in every church, and in every 
country where churches may be planted. 
Upon it, let it be remarked : 

1. That Saul was a Christian, and be- 
longed to the universal invisible church of 
Christ, at the same time that the particular 
church at Jerusalem refused to receive him 
and rejected him. 

2. The transaction proves, beyond a doubt, 
that there is a discretionary power lodged 
in the church, to receive or reject persons, 
and that in order to receive them, some evi- 
dence of faith must be exhibited, more than 
a mere profession on the part of the candi- 
date. Paul professed to be a disciple, but 
they would not receive him upon that. He 
doubtless should have had letters from the 
brethren in Damascus, but the manner in 
which he fled for his life from that city, be- 
ing let down by the wall in a basket at 
night, probably led to the omission ; but he 
secured a witness in Barnabas, and was re- 
ceived on his testimony and recommenda- 
tion — he relating his experience. The church 
at Jerusalem no doubt acted right ; they 
ought not to have received Saul without 
some proof beyond his own declaration or 
profession — and all churches may feel safe 
in following this primitive example. 

3. The transaction furnishes the most sat- 
isfactory illustration of the practical dis- 
tinction between being a Christian, and be- 
ing a member of some visible local Christian 
church. Paul was a Christian ; Christ had 
received him — and between him and his God 
this was sufficient. But between him and 
the church at Jerusalem it availed him no- 
thing. Of that he was not a member ; 
therein he could enjoy no immunities until, 
by producing satisfactory evidence that 
Christ had received him, he could induce 
them to receive him. These incidents, so 
small in themselves, which the Holy Ghost 
has been careful to record, on examination, 



are found to settle the fundamental princi- 
ples of church organization. So much for 
examples ; now let attention be given to 
directions. 

Eom. xiv. 1 : '^ Him that is weak in the 
faith receive ye, but not the doubtful dis- 
putations." Here is instruction who to re- 
ceive into the church, and who not to re- 
ceive. The meaning appears to be that 
those who were weak in faith, or had doubts 
about meats and drinks, but were not con- 
tentious, should be received ; but those 
whose opinions were such as to produce 
disputations about doubtful matters should 
not be received. 

Gal, vi. 1 : " Brethren, if a man be over- 
taken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, re- 
store such an one in the spirit of meekness, 
considering thyself, lest thou also be tempt- 
ed." By restoring such a one, must be un- 
derstood the act of receiving the person 
back to the fellowship of the church. It 
cannot mean a positive spiritual restoration 
or deliverance from guilt, upon the princi- 
ple of Popish absolution, and hence must 
mean a formal and visible restoration to the 
society and fellowship of the visible church. 
It supposes that the person by his fault has 
lost his privileges, and that he has repented 
of the wrong, upon which they are required 
to restore him. The text does not appear 
to refer to a special case, but asserts a gen- 
eral direction, and must be regarded as a 
rule for taking fallen persons back into the 
fellowship of the church, and this idea nec- 
essarily involves a visible organization. 

2. John 10 : "If there come any unto 
you and bring not this doctrine, receive him 
not into your house, neither bid him God 
speed." On this text it must be necessary 
to remark that it does not forbid acts of 
humanity to the worst infidel or heretic in 
the world. The receiving and bidding him 
God speed is forbidden as a religious act ; 
we may feed and lodge a heretic, as a needy 
suflPer, but we must not do it as an act of 
Christian fellowship. The text supposes 
the person to come to us as a Christian, 
claiming to be a Christian, and to profess 



490 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



[book IV. 



to hold and teach the Christian doctrine, 
while he actually holds and teaches funda- 
mental error. Such an one we may not 
receive into our Christian fellowship ; we 
are bound to reject him. This settles a rule 
to be observed in receiving persons into the 
church. Persons are received on two 
grounds ; first, on the ground of conversion 
or reformation ; and secondly, by emigra- 
tion from other Christian communities. The 
text relates to the latter case, and proves 
that persons are to be received or rejected 
on application. There is no way in which 
this can be done without a visible organiza- 
tion. An individual can receive an appli- 
cant or reject him, so far as to answer all 
his private opinions and purposes ; but this 
is a matter that concerns the whole church, 
and upon which they need to act collectively. 
If each acted separately in a given case, 
different conclusions would be arrived at, 
and some would be deceived for want of the 
information others might possess, and one 
would fellowship those whom others would 
reject. The case, then, must be presented 
to the church collectively, and in order to 
this it must be known who compose the 
church, and have a right to act ; and this 
amounts to a visible organization. 

Y. The Scriptures further provide for 
visible church organization by furnishing 
rules and examples for excluding persons 
from the church. 

The Scriptures clearly enjoin the duty, 
and point out the manner of disciplining 
and excommunicating, or withdrawing fel- 
lowship from church members, for disorderly 
and unchristian conduct. If all true Christ- 
ians are members of the church where they 
are, necessarily and without a visible formal 
reception by the church, and if none but 
Christians in heart can be members of the 
church, which must follow the former po- 
sition, then there can be no such thing as 
receiving or excluding members. As a per. 
son becomes a member of the church, with- 
out any act of receiving him by the church 
by becoming a Christian — so by ceasing to 
maintain a Christian life and character he 



must, upon the same principle cease to be 
a member of the church without discipline, 
and the act of excommunicating him or 
disowning him on the part of the church. 
But does this accord with the word of God ? 
Let an answer be furnished from the Scrip- 
tures themselves. 

Matt, xviii. 15, 16, 17 : " Moreover, if 
thy brother shall trespass against thee, go 
and tell him his fault between thee and him 
alone ; if he shall hear thee, thou hast 
gained thy brother. But if he will not hear 
thee, then take with thee one or two more, 
that in the mouth of two or three witnesses 
every word may be established. And if he 
shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the 
church, but if he neglect to hear the church, 
let him be unto thee as a heathen man and 
a publican." This text is decisive in proof 
of the necessity of Christian organization. - 
The duty here enjoined cannot be discharged, [ 
unless there is a body here called " the ' 
church," to whom the appeal of the injured 
brother is to be made. 

1. The term church, in this text, cannot 
mean all Christians, for an individual can- 
not tell his complaint to the . universal 
church, or all the Christians in the world. . 
It must therefore refer to a local church, of 
prescribed and understood limits or num- 
bers. If there are not essential visible or- 
ganizations composed of an understood 
number of persons, no man can know who 
composes the church in any given place, 
and hence he cannot comply with the Sa- 
viour's direction, " tell it to the church," or 
he can never know when he has comphed 
with this direction. A man cannot know 
when he has told it to the church, unless 
he knows who compose the church, and he 
cannot know who compose the church, un- 
less there be a visible organization of an 
understood number of persons constituting 
the church ; therefore the direction of the 
Saviour implies essential visible church 
organization. 

2. The force of this cannot be turned 
aside by a criticism on the word ekklesia, 
here rendered church. This word is de- 



CHAP. I.] 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



491 



rived from the Greek verb eJcJcaleo, which 
signifies to convoke, hence eJcMesia prima- 
rily signifies an assembly or congregation, 
and has been rendered " church" only in 
those cases where it obviously means a 
Christian assembly or association. Now 
suppose we were to give it a literal trans- 
lation in the text, and make it read, '' tell 
it to the {eJcklesia) congregation ;" it would 
not lessen the proof it furnishes in support 
of a real visible organization. The very 
directions given suppose that there is a 
congregation of Christian brethren, of 
which the trespasser and the person upon 
whom the trespass is committed are mem- 
bers ; for unless they are both members of 
the congregation, it cannot be seen what 
they have to do with the difficulty. This 
supposes that the congregation is composed 
of an understood number of persons ; other- 
wise it could not be known who are mem- 
bers and who are not. This follows also 
from the reason urged above, that unless it 
be understood who compose the congrega- 
tion, the injured person cannot know when 
he has complied with the direction of 
Christ, cannot know when he has told it to 
the congregation. The direction supposes 
also that there is not only a congregation 
of understood limits, but that such a con 
gregation is in the habit of meeting, not 
only for worship, but to hear and judge of 
complaints, and hence that it has the pow- 
er of moral discipline ; and as the only pen- 
alty named, is to let the offender be unto 
us as a heathen man and a puplican^hat 
is, reject him from the association, refusing 
to own him as one of the number compos- 
ing the congregation that act on his case — 
it is clear that the congregation is compos- 
ed of persons known to each other, and 
definite in number. If it is not known who 
compose the congregation, there could be 
no force in the act of rejecting a person, 
implied in the words, " let him be unto thee 
as a heathen man and a publican." Thus 
it is seen that, understanding the terra ren 
dered church in the most general sense, the 
directions given by Christ still imply the 



existence of real visible Christian organi- 
zations, possessing the power of moral dis- 
cipline over their own members. 

1 Cor. V. 12, 13 : " For what have I to 
do to judge them also that are without ? 
do not ye judge them that are within ? But 
them that are without God judgeth. There- 
fore put away from among yourselves that 
wicked person." The meaning of this text 
appears to be this : It does not belong to 
me to judge them without, who are not 
members of the church ; but you claim the 
right to judge them within, who are mem- 
bers of the church, while those without are 
left to the judgment of God. Therefore, 
because you have a right to judge those 
who belong to the church, put away that 
wicked person from among you by expell- 
ing him from the church. The directions 
related to a particular person concerning 
whom the Apostle had been writing, who 
had committed a great sin. The text as 
clearly as possible involves the act of try- 
ing, judging, and excluding upon convic- 
tion, and they are not in this case com- 
manded to withdraw from him, but to put 
him away from among them, which could 
be done in no other way than but by ex- 
pelling him from the church. 

Titus iii. 10 : "A man that is a heretic, 
after the first and second admonition re- 
ject." This is a plain direction for disci- 
plining a church member for holding and 
teaching false doctrines. He must be ad- 
monished twice, and then if he persists in 
his heresy he must be rejected, which can. 
mean nothing else than exclusion from the 
fellowship .of the church. 

Gal. V. 12 : "I would they were cut off 
which trouble you." There can be but 
one reasonable interpretation put upon 
this text, and that is, that the apostle 
wished those troublesome persons cut off 
from the church, in the sense of excommu- 
nication. It cannot be supposed that he 
(Paul) wished them cut off from life in 
their sins. To wish them dead, would be 
more than any will be likely to attribute to 
the apostle. If, then, the apostle wishes 



492 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



[book it/ 



them cut off from the church by excommu- 
nication, one or two consequences follow, 
viz: 

1. They were not Christians, were not 
accepted by Christ ; and it follows, be- 
yond the power of contradiction, that per- 
sons did then belong to the visible church 
who were not accepted of Christ. 

2. If it be maintained that they were 
accepted of Christ, to escape the above 
conclusion, then it must follow that Paul 
wished to reject ard cut off from the church 
those whom Christ received. This would 
prove that persons were received into the 
church, not simply on the ground of their 
acceptance with God, but upon their visi- 
ble conformity to visible rules and good 
order. The no-organizationist can take 
which horn of the dilemma he pleases. 

2 John 10 : " If there come any unto 
you and bring not this doctrine, receive him 
not into your house, neither bid him God- 
speed." This text can not mean that we 
are not to shelter and feed a bad man, but 
only that we are not to receive him as a 
Christian, or as a Christian teacher, and 
allow him to preach his false doctrines 
in our house. And it cannot be over- 
looked that the text involves the right and 
duty of judging of the doctrines men teach, 
and of rejecting them if they do not hold 
the truth which covers the whole ground of 
moral discipline. 

Eev. ii. 14, 15 : " But I have a few 
things against thee, because thou hast them 
there that hold the doctrine of Balaam. So 
hast thou also them that hold the doctrine 
of the Nicolaitanes." Here again a church 
is charged as in fault for not having exer- 
cised a proper discipline by rejecting cor- 
rupt persons. It is believed the argument 
has been sustained, and need not be fur- 
ther pursued. 



SECTION II. 

Church Government — the Righti of the 
Laity. 

I. The Scriptures contain the fundamen- 
tal principles of church government. 

There are two extremes into which writ- 
ers on church polity Often fall. High 
church men insist that the Scriptures ab- 
solutely settle the form of church govern- 
ment, and that Episcopacy, by a success- 
ion from the apostles, is that form. This 
is one extreme. The other is a denial that 
the Scriptures prescribe any form of church 
government. This position is very conve- 
nient for those who have adopted forms 
which have no warrant from Scripture. By 
denying that the Scriptures prescribe any 
form, they insist that the form of govern- 
ment is left to the church, to suit itself in 
the matter, and hence infer that theirs is 
just as Scriptural as any other form can be. 
This is no less an extreme and no less an 
error than the high church position, as it 
will equally justify any form of church gov- 
ernment, from the most "absolute Indepen- 
dency to the most absolute Popery. The 
high church doctrine, presenting a specific 
form of church government, must be con- 
sidered elsewhere ; but this general denial 
that the Scriptures prescribed any form, 
needs to be considered in this place, before 
entering upon the consideration of specific, 
forms. If it be true that the Scriptures 



prescribe no 



form, then all forms are alike 



Scriptural or unscriptural, and the contro- 
versy about the comparative Scriptural 
merits of the different forms is at an end. 
To present the subject in its true light, a 
few extracts on the point under coDsidera- 
tion are here given, from writers who main- 
tain that the Scriptures are silent on the 
subject of the form of church government. 
These quotations are made from a late 
work on Church Polity, by Eev. Abel 
Stevens, A. M. Mr. Stevens has so man- 
aged as to express his views by quoting the 
language of others, so that by quoting his 



CHAP. T.] 



VISIBLE CHURCH OEGANIZATION. 



493 



opinion, we at the same time g-et the opin- 
ions of most of the principal writers on the 
same side of the question. Mr. Stevens 
says : 

" Methodists believe, generally, that no 
particular form of ecclesiastical polity is of 
divine prescription, and that, therefore, the 
mode of governing the church is left to its 
own discretion and the exigencies, of time 
and place. Bishop Emory says, (quoting 
subtantially the language of Dr. Campbell), 
* That no form of polity can plead such an 
exclusive charter as that phrase (divine 
right), in its present acceptation, is under- 
stood to imply ; that the claim is clearly 
the ofispring of sectarian bigotry and igno- 
rance. This we may say with freedom, that 
if a particular form of polity had been es- 
sential to the church, it would have been 
laid down in a different manner in the sacred 
books,' — [Epis. Can., p. 41. 

" Dr. Bangs says : ' No specific form of 
church government is prescribed in the 
Scripture, and, therefore, it is left to the 
discretion of the church to regulate these 
matters as the exigencies of time, place, and 
circumstances shall dictate to be most ex- 
pedient, and likely to accomplish the gTeat- 
est amount of good : always avoiding any 
and everything which God has prohibited.' 
— [Orig. Ch., No. xiii. 

" Watson, adopting the language of Bish- 
op Tomline, says : 'As it has not pleased 
our Almighty Father to prescribe any par- 
ticular form of government for the security 
of temporal comforts to his rational crea- 
tures, so neither has he prescribed any par- 
ticular form of ecclesiastical polity as abso- 
lutely necessary to the attainment of eternal 
happiness. Thus the gospel only lays down 
general principles, and leaves the application 
of them to men as free agents.' — [Th. Inst., 
vol. ii., p. 585. 

" Finally, Wesley himself, says : ' As to 
my own judgment, I still believe the Epis- 
copal form of church government to be 
Scriptural and apostolical. I mean, well 
agreeing with the practice and writings of 
the apostles. But that it is prescribed in 



Scripture, I do not believe. This opinion, 
which I once zealously espoused, I have 
been heartily ashamed of ever since I read 
Bishop Stillingfleet's Irenicum. I think he 
has unanswerably proved that neither Christ 
nor his apostles prescribed any particular 
form of church government, and that the 
plea of the divine right of episcopacy was 
never heard of in the primitive church.' — ■ 
[Letter to Clarke, Works, vol. vii. p. 284. 

" Bishop Tomline, says, ' Though I flatter 
myself that I have proved episcopacy to be 
an apostolical institution, yet I readily ac- 
knowledge that there is no precept in the 
New Testament which commands that every 
church should be governed by bishops.' 

" Dr. Low says, ' No certain form of gov- 
ernment is prescribed in the word, only gen- 
eral rules laid down for it.' — [Iren., p. 417. 
Bishop Bridges declares, ' God hath not 
expressed the form of church 'government, 
at least not so as to bind us to it.' — [Iren., 
p. 417. 

" If we come lower, to the time of King 
James, his majesty himself, declared in print 
us his judgment, 'It is granted to every 
Christian king, prince, and commonwealth, 
lo prescribe, within its own jurisdiction, that 
external form of church government which 
approaches as much as possible to its own 
form of civil administration.' — [Iren., p. 
417. 

" In addition to these considerations we 
have the decisive fact, that the Holy Scrip- 
tures do not contain a single injunction re- 
specting the form of church government. 
They state the general principles of mioral 
discipline ; but, as we have shown by many 
high Episcopal authorities, they nowhere 
prescribe the forms and gradation of eccle- 
siastical offices." 

The above extracts are all taken from 
Mr. Stevens' book, and may be found on 
pages 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19. 

Some of these extracts assert important 
truths, and others make important conces- 
sions in regard to Episcopacy, as not exist- 
ing by divine right ; yet some of them assert 
dangerous errors, and as a whole, they are 



494 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



[book IV. 



calculated to obscure rather tlian make plain 
the question under consideration. A few 
remarks may serve to present the subject in 
a clear point of light. 

1. The extracts clearly show, on the part 
of their authors, an entire abandonment of 
all claim that the form of church polity 
which they support, is based upon any Scrip- 
tural command ; and it follows, according 
to their own confession, that it might be ex- 
changed for a different form of polity with- 
out any violation of Scripture principles. 
This is important in its practical bearing 
on the controversy ; for, to be consistent, in 
defending their church polity they must rely 
exclusively upon such arguments as are 
drawn from expediency and convenience. 

2. The doctrine of the extracts cannot be 
admitted as generally true, only of the less 
important details of church polity ; the fun- 
damental principles of church organization 
and church government are, beyond all ques- 
tion, clearly taught and enjoined in the New 
Testament. If no principles of church gov- 
ernment are made obligatory, and none for- 
bidden in the Scriptures, then all appeal to 
the Scriptures in support of this form, and 
in condemnation of that, is out of the ques- 
tion, and Popery, Episcopacy, Presbyterian- 
ism, and Congregationalism are all alike ad- 
missible, so far as any Scriptural law is con- 
cerned. If the Scriptures do make certain 
principles of church government obligatory 
and forbid others, they prescribe some form 
of church polity. What that form is, will 
hereafter be considered. 

3. The extracts contain some obvious er- 
rors, which need to be specifically pointed 
out. The following is one instance : " It is 
granted to every Christian king, prince, and 
commonwealth to prescribe, within its own 
jurisdiction, that external form of church 
government which approaches as much as 
possible to its own form of civil administra- 
tion." This quotation from King James 
asserts what none will or can admit, except 
such as are in favor of a state religion, the 
forms of which shall be imposed by civil 
law. If admitted, it would prove the point 



aimed at ; but such a concesssion to civil 
authority in matters of religion, is a dear 
way of proving that the Scriptures have 
not prescribed any form of church polity. 

But why are so many able authors so 
anxious to make it appear that the Scrip- 
tures prescribe no form of church polity. 
The reason is plain. ' They feel that their 
own form of church polity cannot be sus- 
tained by the Scriptures, and to cover this 
defect, and to shield themselves from the as- 
saults of the high church men, who contend 
for episcopacy jurediviuo, and from the more 
to be feared attacks of those who insist that 
the Scriptures prescribe a more liberal poli- 
ty than episcopacy, in which the laity have 
a voice in matters pertaining to government, 
they assert that no form is prescrbed in the 
Scriptures, from which it must follow that 
theirs is just as Scriptural as any other. 

The truth appears to be this : the funda- 
mental principles of church polity are found 
in the Scriptures, but the mode of carrying 
them out, in much of the detail, is left to the 
discretion of the church, as time and cir- 
cumstances shall demand. A brief state- 
ment of the leading principles which may be 
regarded as settled by the Scriptures, must . 
close this section. 

Church governments supposes rules, and 
the administration of rules, implying a leg- 
islative or rule-making power, and adminis- 
trative officers. The legislative or rule- 
making power embraces two points : first, 
the right of determining what the Scrip- 
tures teach — for Christ is the only legislator 
of the church, and the Scriptures are her 
only law-book, so far as Christ has legislat- 
ed for us. The second point in legislative 
power embraces the right of settling those 
matters which are not fundamental, but 
merely economical and prudential, and 
which are not settled by the Scriptures but 
are left to the discretion of the church, to 
be instituted and changed as circumstances 
may require, so that nothing be ordained 
which the Scriptures forbid, and nothing be 
neglected which the Scriptures command. 
These points have been fully dicussed in the 



CHAP. I.] 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



495 



first section, and need not be reviewed. 
The administration of rules supposes admin- 
istrators, and administrators supposes an 
appointment to office, and, of course, an ap- 
pointing power somewhere. The right of 
church government, with whomsoever this 
right is found, includes both the legislative 
and administrative power, it being the right 
of saying what shall be the rules of govern- 
ment, and the right of administering them, 
or of saying by whom they shall be admin- 
istered. 

There are two fundamental principles 
which must enter into every church organiza- 
tion to render it Scriptural, and which may 
be regarded as settled by the Scriptures. 

1. The right of the laity to judge for 
themselves what the Scriptures teach, what 
duties they require, what additiontial pru- 
dential rules are necessary, and by whom 
they shall be administered among them, and 
of determining who shall be their religious 
teachers, may be regarded as settled by the 
Scriptures. 

2. The Scriptures absolutely require of 
every church, in every land and age, and 
under all circumstance, that a behef in the 
fundamental doctrines of the gospel and the 
practice of its pure morality be made condi- 
tions of church fellowship. 

There are other fundamental principL 
which pertain to the ministry, but they be- 
long to another branch of the subject. The 
question of church government is now under 
consideration, only so far as the laity is con- 
cerned. 

II. The rights and responsibilities of 
church government are essentially with the 
laity. 

By this proposition we do not mean that 
ministers have nothing to do in the govern 
ment of the church ; they have an important 
part to act in it ; but we mean that they 
have a right to act in the government of a 
church, only in conjunction with the church, 
and as the officer and executive minister of 
the church made such by the consent and 
free choice of the church. 

It is the right of the laity to judge for 



themselves what the Scriptures teach, what 
duties they require, what additional pruden- 
tial rules are necessary, by whom they shall 
be administered among them, and who shall 
be their religious teachers. The substance 
of this is, the laity have the right of self- 
government, and are not placed by the gos- 
pel under a government exclusively clerical, 
without power to enact their own rules, and 
to appoint their own officers to administer 
them. 

The points here to be established are, 
that churches in their independent position 
must possess the right of making their own 
rules, receiving and disciplining their own 
members, and of electing their own pastors ;. 
and that, in any association or more general 
connection that may be entered into, there 
must be such a lay representation as will 
enable the laity still to retain in their own 
hands the right and power of self-govern- 
ment. This follows from the principles laid 
down, and the arguments advanced on the 
subject of church organization in the first 
section ; but it is proper not to leave them 
to be inferred from principles there discussed, 
but to give them here, in the proper place, 
a more full consideration and confirmation. 
The argument will embrace two points, viz : 
What the Scriptures teach on the subject, 
and what is the doctrine of the earliest and 
best ecclesiastial writers. 

1, We appeal to the Scriptures, and in- 
sist that they clearly teach the doctrine in 
question, and will first introduce a few texts 
which give to the laity the power of disci- 
pline, including the right to receive and ex- 
clude members, according to the law of 
Christ. 

Matt, xviii. 15-17 : " Moreover, if thy 
brother trespass against thee, go and tell 
him his fault between thee and him alone ; 
if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy 
brother. But if he will not hear thee, then 
take with thee one or two more, that in the 
mouth of two or three witnesses every word 
may be established. And if he shall neg- 
lect to hear them, tell it unto the church ; 
but if he neglect to hear the church, let 



496 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



[book. IV. 



him be unto thee as a heathen man and a 
publican " 

This is the only explicit rule which Christ 
has given us for the adjustment of personal 
difficulties between members' of the same 
church, and it is too plain to be misunder- 
stood. The case is not brought before the 
" bishop, elder, deacon or preacher ;" it is 
to be told to the church — that is, the con- 
gregation of Christians. This shows that 
a church is one congregation, meeting in one 
place. It also clearly contemplates, so far 
at least as control of the question of mem- 
bership is concerned, a purely congregation- 
al government. 

Eom. xvi. 17 : " ISTow I beseech you, 
brethren, mark them which cause divisions 
and offenses contrary to the doctrines which 
ye have learned, and avoid them." 

This text proves that the power of disci- 
pline is lodged with the church. To mark 
and avoid, in the sense of the text, must 
mean that application of discipline which 
separates offending members from the fellow- 
ship of the church, and this is as far as 
church disciphne can go. Now as this ap- 
plication of discipline is to be made by the 
church, as the apostle urges the church to 
this work, the right and power of discipline 
must be in the hands of the church and not 
in the hands of the ministry. 

1 Cor. V. 7 : "Purge out therefore the 
old leaven, that ye may be a new lump." 

This is a figurative expression, by which 
the apostle absolutely commanded them to 
exclude from their communion a certain 
corrupt member. What shows that the 
power to do it rested with them, is, his se- 
vere rebuke for not having done It. Their 
power or right to expel this corrupt person 
did not depend upon his command to do it, 
because in connection with the command he 
finds fault with them because they have not 
already done it. This view the preceding 
verses fully sustain. 

2 Thes. iii. 6 : " Now we command you, 
brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from 
every brother that walketh disorderly." 



Withdrawing from a brother means noth- 
ing more nor less than excluding him from 
our church fellowship. This the brethren, 
the church, were required to do, and of 
course they must have held the power of dis- 
cipline in their own hands. 

The above texts have been produced as 
specimens of the many which teach that 
each local church possesses the right and 
power of discipline, and are bound to exer- 
cise it. These Scriptures teach that the 
church is held responsible for the truth of 
the gospel preached among them, and for 
the purity of their own body, which could 
not be true without the right of choosing 
their own teachers, and of disciplining their 
own members. 

Having proved that churches have the 
right and power of discipline over their own 
members, it shall next be shown that they 
have the right of electing their own pastors 
or religious teachers, and of judging for 
themselves of their qualifications. When it 
is said that a church has the right of judg- 
ing for itself of the qualifications of a minis- 
ter, the meaning is not that one church can 
judge for another, but only for itself. A 
church may judge that a man cannot serve 
them to advantage, and yet another church 
may judge him to be the very man to enter- 
tain and profit them, and both churches may 
at the same time decide correctly, on ac- 
count of the different characters that com- 
pose the two churches, and the different cir- 
cumstances that attend them. 

But to the proof that laymen possess the 
rights and powers in question. The first 
case to which we will refer, is the election of 
Matthias to take the place of Judas. This 
was the first ecclesiastical act performed 
after the ascension of the Master, and is re- 
corded Acts i. Let us look at the facts in 
the case. They were in an upper room 
where the eleven apostles abode, with the 
women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and 
his brethren. (Yersesl3,14). By brethren, 
here, we are probably to understand our 
Lord's disciples, who had been with him and 
adhered to him durin.sr all the vicissitudes 



CHAP. I.] 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



497 



of liis life and the scenes of his death That 
the company of his disciples were present is 
clear from what is recorded in verse 15, 
which reads as follows : 

" And in those days Peter stood up in the 
midst of the disciples, and said, (the number 
of the names togeher were about a hundred 
and twenty,) men and brethren." 

There were, then, one hi*adred and twen- 
ty persons present. Let it be understood 
that the address of Peter was to this whole 
company. The object of the address is 
stated in verses 21 and 22, as follows : 

" Wherefore of these men which have 
companied with us all the time that the 
Lord Jesus went in and out among us, be- 
ginning from the baptism of John, unto 
that same day that he was taken up from 
us, must one be ordained to be a witness 
with us of his resurrection : 

In verses 23-26 we have the result, upon 
which the argument depends, as follows : 

" And they appointed two, Joseph called 
Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and 
Matthias. And they prayed, and said, 
Thou Lord, which knoweth the hearts of all 
men, show whether of these two thou hast 
chosen, that he may take part of this minis- 
try and apostleship, from which Judas by 
transgression fell, that he might go to his 
own place. And they gave forth their lots, 
and the lot fell upon Matthias ; and he was 
numbered with the eleven apostles." 

The point proved by all this, is that the 
disciples, the one hundred and twenty were 
addressed by Peter, and that they, the one 
hundred and twenty, appointed the two 
candidates. Thus did laymen select the first 
high officer appointed in the church after 
the ascension of Christ. We have the opin- 
ion of Dr. Clarke that the company of dis- 
ciples participated in this transaction, which 
possesses additional force from the inciden- 
tal manner in which it is introduced. On 
verse 23 he says, " It is likely the disciples 
themselves were divided in opinion which of 
these two was the most proper person, and 
therefore laid the matter before God. No 
more than two candidates were presented 
32 



probably because the attention of the breth- 
ren had been drawn to these two alone." 
This shows that in his opinion the transac- 
tion was the work of the whole company. 
In speaking of the address of Peter, verse 
15, Dr. Clarke says, " It was not among 
the disciples merely that he stood, but among 
the whole company, which amounted to one 
hundred and twenty." 

On the subject of the " lots," which were 
used on the occasion. Dr. Clarke remarks, 
as follows, verse 25 : " It is possible that 
the whole was decided by what we common- 
ly call ballot, God inclining the hearts of the 
majority to ballot for Matthias." Now all 
these remarks are entirely inconsistent with 
the belief that the whole was a clerical 
transaction, aside from any participation of 
the laity. 

The case, then, we think is clear, that an 
appeal was made to the laity for the settle* 
ment of the first question that arose in the 
Christian church after the Saviour ascended 
on high, and the movement was made, too, 
by a leading apostle, who had received the 
promise that the Spirit should guide him 
into all truth. 

The second transaction to which we will 
refer is recorded in the sixth chapter of 
Acts. A murmur arose on the part of the 
Grecian disciples because their widows were 
neglected. To this murmur the apostles 
responded by calling the multitude of the 
disciples, to whom, after excusing them- 
selves from the burden of attending to the 
business, they gave the following direc- 
tions. 

" Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among 
you seven men of honest report, full of the 
Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may ap- 
point over this business." 

From this it is clear that the people se- 
lected their own ofiicers. But it has been 
supposed by some that the apostles reserved 
the right of appointing them, as they say, 
" whom we may appoint over this business." 
Admitting all that can reasonably be claimed 
on this ground, still the text fully proves 
the point for which we contend. If the ex- 



498 



VISIBLE CHITRCH ORGANIZATION. 



[book IV. 



ample of the apostles in the appointing of 
these men be binding, then the example of 
their election by the people is no less bind- 
•ino-. Therefore, if it be insisted that the 
people have not the right of constituting 
church officers, without the sanction of the 
ministry, it can with equal propriety be in- 
sisted that the ministry cannot constitute 
them without the election of the people. 
The latter position is certainly the strong- 
est one of the two, from the fact that the 
apostles sustained a different and more com- 
manding relation to the church than minis- 
ters do or can sustain to the church now. 
They had received a commission personally 
from Jesus Christ, and were divinely inspired 
to organize the church, and settle its gov- 
ernment ; and if they, clad in the authority 
of this special commission, with their minds 
enlightened by the spirit of inspiration, 
submitted it to the people to select their 
own officers, how much more must this right 
pertain to them now, when ministers can 
make no more pretension to inspiration than 
the laity ? 

It may be remarked that the appointment 
of the apostles in the case under considera- 
tion can be considered as embracing only 
two points, both of which are consistent 
with the general right of the laity to the 
same voice and control which they exercised 
in this case. 

(1.) The apostolic sanction of the crea- 
tion of the new office is implied. This 
might appear even necessary under their 
high commission and inspiration, without 
affecting the question of laymen's rights un 
der a ministry who can claim neither the 
commission or inspiration of the apos- 
tles. 

(2.) The appointment of the apostles, 
after the election by the people, may be 
viewed in the light of an induction into the 
office to which the people had elected the 
•persons thus inducted. The transaction 
does not necessarily imply more than this, 
and this is consistent with the absolute 
right of election on the part of the people, 
What adds to the force of all this, is the 



actual choice of officers on the occasion by 
the people, in accordance with the express 
direction of the apostles. 

We have now produced two instances of 
popular elections in the apostolic church, 
embracing the first two cases of appoint- 
ment to office that occurred after our Lord's 
ascension, which we think is sufficient to 
settle the question of the constitution of the 
church on this point. WTien officers were 
wanted, the apostles, who were commission- 
ed to organize the church, told the people 
to select those officers for themselves, from 
their own ranks, and the right thus to elect 
their officers must belong to them, or the 
apostles must have violated their trust, by 
suffering, yea, directing the people to do 
what they had no right to do. He who 
denies the former must admit the latter. 

In the Acts of the Apostles, xv. 1-31, 
we have a transaction recorded which bears 
directly upon the question. We will not 
fill space by quoting the whole chapter, and 
will only state briefly the principal points, 
referring to the particular verses relied upon 
as proof. 

(1.) An important difference of opinion 
existed, and a discussion arose at Antioch. 
The main question was, whether or not 
the Gentile converts were required to be 
circumcised, but this question doubtless was 
regarded as involving the perpetuity or ab- 
rogation of the whole Mosaic Kitual. ( Yer- 
ses 1, 2.) 

(2.) It was determined that a deputation 
should be sent to Jerusalem to lay the sub- 
ject before the apostles and elders. This 
deputation consisted of "Paul and- Barna- 
bas, and certain others of them." (Yerse 
2.) Who these certain others were is not 
clear, but from Gal. ii. 1-5, it is probable 
that Titus was one of them, who must have 
been a young convert at this time. ■ The 
mission was undertaken at the expense of 
the church, for they were "brought on 
their way by the church." (Yerse 3.) 

(3.) " When they were come to Jerusa- 
lem, they, were received by the church, and 
of the apostles and elders." (Yerse 4.) 



CHAP. I.] 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



499 



The church had as mnch to do with their 
reception as had the apostles and elders. 

(4.) The question was brought before the 
apostles and elders and the whole multitude 
for adjudication. That it was brought be- 
fore the apostles and elders is proved by 
verse 6. That it was equally brought be- 
fore the whole church and discussed by 
them, as by a deliberative body, is proved 
by verse 12. " Then all the multitude kept 
silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and 
Paul." That the multitude participated in 
the discussion, is proved by a comparison of 
verses 7 and 12. The former says, " there 
had been much disputing," M'hile the latter 
says, '' then all the mulitude kept silence." 
Their keeping silence in the 12th verse, is 
the antithesis of the much discussion in the 
7th verse. 

(5.) After Paul and Barnabas had con- 
cluded their remarks, James summed up 
the whole subject, and stated his judgment 
in the case, which appears to have been sat- 
isfactory to all. (Yerses 13-21, but 19 
and 20 in particular.) There is the same 
proof that the church consented to this de- 
cission that there is that the other apostles 
did. 

(6.) They all unite in communicating 
their judgment to the church at Antioch. 
Yerse 22 : " Then pleased it the apostles, 
and elders, and the whole churth to send 
chosen men of their own company to Anti- 
och with Paul and Barnabas ; namely, 
Judas surnamed Barnabas, and Silas, chief 
men among the brethren.'' The whole church 
sent these men, as much as the apostles and 
elders did. 

(7.) They all joined in a written state- 
ment of the decision which they sent by 
them. Yerse 23 : " And they wrote letters 
by them after this manner : The apostles, 
and elders, and brethren send greeting, unto 
the brethren which are of the Gentiles in 
Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia." Note, 
this letter was from the brethren at Jerusa- 
lem as well as from the apostles, and was 
addressed to the brethren at Antioch, and 
not to the ministers. 



(8.) The deputation, when they arrived 
at Antioch, delivered the letter to the church, 
who proceeded to read it. Yerses 30, 31 : 
" They came to Antioch, and when they had 
gathered the multitude together, they deliv- 
ered the epistle ; which when they had read, 
they rejoiced for the consolation." In this 
transaction was settled the first great theo- 
logical question that came up for discussion, 
after the Master had retired from the world 
to his throne, and in its settlement it is clear 
that the laity had as much to do as did the 
ministry. This fact, that the apostles, who 
were divinely inspired to settle the princi- 
ples of church government, submitted the 
question to the consideration of the breth- 
ren, is conclusive evidence that this was the 
plan upon which the church was organized, 
and upon which it should be governed. The 
reason for such a course now, when minis- 
ters are not inspired, is much stronger than 
it could have been then, when ministers 
were inspired. What right can the minis- 
try have to take away from the laity what 
was so clearly granted to them by inspired 
men, whose actions are admitted to have 
been authoritative ? We trow not. 

Actsxviii. 27 : " And when he [Apollos] 
was disposed to pass into Achaia, the breth- 
ren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive 
him : who, when he was come, helped them 
much which had believed through grace." 

The letter here given was a recommenda- 
tion as a Christian teacher, and, in giving 
such a letter, they assumed the right of judg- 
ing for themselves of his Christian character 
and of his ministerial qualifications. This 
right was doubtless assumed and exercised 
in this case by laymen. There is not the 
slightest intimation that his was a letter 
emanating from clerical authority. The 
letter was also clearly addressed to laymen, 
and not to some presiding minister, having 
" charge of all the elders and deacons, trav- 
eling and local preachers, and exhorters in 
his district." 

2 Cor. iii. 1 : "Or need we, as some oth- 
ers, epistles of commendation to you, or let- 
ters of commend from you ?" 



500 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



[book r 



The text clearly proves two things, viz : 
(1.) Letters of commendation to and from 
churches were necessary for some other 
ministers. The expression, "need we as 
some others," clearly proves that others did 
need such letters. 

(2.) The right to give and receive such 
letters is most clearly ceded to the church 
in the text. The apostle does not intimate 
that they had not a right to give, and re- 
ceive such letters when given by other 
churches, nor does he intimate that they are 
not necessary for " some otJiers," but only 
intimates that such letters were not neces- 
sary for him and his fellow apostles. They 
were commissioned by Christ, and had the 
power of working miracles, which was a 
sufficient recommendation wherever they 
went, but others needed letters of recom- 
mendation. 

From the two points made out above, a 
very clear conclusion follows. As such let- 
ters were given and received by the aposto- 
lic churches, and as the right of o:iviug and 
receiving them belonged to the churches, it 
follows that the local churches had the right 
of judging for themselves on the subject of 
ministerial qualifications and character 
The very act of recommending a minister, 
is the act of expressing our judgment con- 
cerning him, and the right to do this in- 
cludes the right of judgment in the case. 
This, we see, originally belonged to lay- 
men. 

1 John iv. 1 : " Beloved, believe not every 
spirit, but try the spirit, whether it be of 
God, because many false prophets have 
gone out into the world." 

Trying the spirits here clearly means 
judging between true and false teachers. 
Those who are required to do this must 
have the right of judging what is truth and 
what is error ; to them must belong the 
right of settling the doctrines of the creed. 
But this duty of judging between false and 
true teachers is, in the text, clearly imposed 
upon laymen, embracing those whom the 
apostle calls little children, young men 
fathers. Chap. ii. 12, 13. 



and 



2 John 10 : "If there come any unto yoi' 
and bring not this doctrine, receive him not 
unto your house, neither bid him God speed." 
This text is precisely the character of tli' 
last, so far as its bearing upon the questio! : 
is concerned. The duty enjoined is, to 
judge and reject a false teacher, on account 
of his defection in doctrine. This duty in- 
cludes the right of judging what the true 
doctrine is, and what is false doctrine, and 
as it is here urged upon the church, not the 
ministry, it follows that the laity are judges 
of the doctrines of the Gospel, and are 
charged with the important work of pre- 
serving them pure. 

2. The views above drawn from the 
Scriptures are sustained by the best ecclesi- 
astical writers. A few extracts follow from 
a work entitled "A Church without^ a 
Bishop, by Lyman Coleman, author qf the 
Antiquities of the Christian Church. Mr. 
Coleman says : 

" The brethren chose their own officers 
from among themselves. Or if, in the first 
organization of the churches, their officers 
were appointed by the apostles, it was with 
the approbation of the members of the 
same."— [Page 12, 20. 

" So universal was the right of suffrage, 
and so reasonable, that it attracted the no- 
tice of the Emperor, Alexander Severus, 
who reigned from A. D. 222 to 235. In 
imitation of the custom of Christians and 
Jews in the appointment of their priests, as 
he says, he gave the people the right of re- 
jecting the appointment of any procurator, 
or chief president of the provinces, whom 
he might appoint to such office. Their votes, 
however, in these cases, were not merely 
testimonial, but really judicial and elective." 
" There are on record instances in which 
the people, of their own accord, and by ac- 
clamation, elected individuals to the office 
of bishop or presbyter, without any previ- 
ous nomination. Ambrose, bishop of Mi- 
lan, was elected in this manner A. D. 314." 
— [Page 67. 

Our author gives a list of others elected ■ 
in the same way, which we omit. He 



J 



CHAP. I.] 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



501 



makes the following quotations from Mos- 
heim's " Dissertations Sacr*," a work which 
we believe has never been published in this 
country. 

" This power of appointing their elders 
continued to be exercised by the members 
of the church at large, as long as primitive 
manners were retained entire," Page 70. 

" The bishop began in the third century 
to appoint his own deacons at pleasure, and 
other inferior orders of clergy. In other 
appointments, also, his efforts began to dis- 
turb the freedom of the elections, and direct 
them agreeably to his own will. And yet 
Cyprian, only about fifty years before, 
apologized to the laity and clergy of his dio- 
cese, for appointing one Auretius to the 
office of reader. In justification of this 
measure, he pleads the extraordinary virtues 
of the candidate, the urgent necessity of the 
case, and the impossibility of consulting 
them as he was wont to do on all such oc- 
casions." — [Pages 71, 72. 

" The Emperor, Valantiuian III, com- 
plains of Hilary of Aries, that he unworthi- 
ly ordained some in direct opposition to the 
will of the people ; and when they refused 
those whom they had not chosen, that he 
contracted an armed body, and by military 
power forcibly thrust into office the minis- 
ters of the Gospel of peace." — [Page 77. 

"Leo the Great, A. D. 450, asserts the 
right of the people to elect their spiritual 
rulers." — [lb. 

" Tertullian describes such assemblies 
[synods] as bodies representative of the 
whole church." — [Page 115. 

Our author makes the following quota- 
tion from Mosheim's work referred to : 

" In the infancy, indeed, of councils, the 
bishops did not scruple to acknowledge that 
they appeared there merely as the ministers 
or legates of their respective churches ; and 
that they were, in fact, nothing more than 
representatives acting from instructions. 
But it was not long before this humble lan- 
guage began, by little and little, to exchange 
for a loftier tone. They at length took up- 
on themselves to assert that they were the 



legitimate successors of the apostles them 
selves, and might, consequently, of their 
own proper authority, dictate laws to the 
Christian flock." — [Page 115. 

The writer makes the following quota- 
tions from the learned Neander : 

" From the nature of the religious life 
and of the Christian church, it is hardly 
possible to draw the inference, naturally, 
that the government should have been en- 
trusted to the hands of a single one. Tlie 
monarchial form of Government accords 
not ivith the Spirit of the Christian church.'^ 
— [Page 19. 

" Eiddle gives the following sketch of the 
constitution and government of the church 
at the beginning of the second century, 
" The subordinate government, of each 
particular church was vested in itself ; that 
is to say the whole body elected its minis- 
ters and officers, and was consulted concern- 
ing all matters of importance." This is 
said of the church at the close of the first 
century." — [lb, 

" The mode of appointing bishops and 
presbyters," says Eiddle, " has been re- 
peatedly changed. Election by the people, 
for instance, has been discontinued." — 
Page 70, 

" It is clearly asserted by Dr. Pin, that 
in Rome and Carthage no one could be ex- 
pelled from the church, or restored again, 
except with the consent of the people." 
—[Page 102, 

" Yalesius, the learned commentator on 
Eusebius, says that the people's suffrages 
were required when any one was to be re- 
ceived into the church, who for any fault 
had been excommunicated. This is said of 
the usages of the church in the third cen- 
tury."— [lb. 

We might multiply these extracts to al- 
most any extent, but will close where we 
are. Mr. Coleman, from whose work we 
have taken the liberty to make such copious 
extracts, is versed in Oriental literature, and 
has spent some years in Germany, amid the 
musty records of her literary institutions, 
as his work gives ample proof. It should 



502 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



[book IY. 



be remarked that all the extracts we have 
made are sustained by references to the 
proper authorities, but as these are works 
unknown to the common reader, and several 
of them in other languages, we have omitted 
the references. Mr. Coleman's book is be- 
fore the public, and if he has not quoted his 
learned authorities correctly, let him be 
called to an account by the literati. 

Dr. Mosheim is endorsed by Mr. "Watson 
as follows : 

" The best ecclesiastical historians have 
showed that through the greater part of the 
second century, the Christian churches were 
independent of each other. Each Christian 
assembly, says Mosheim, was a little state 
governed by its own laws, which were en- 
acted, or at least approved, by the society." 
— [Biblical Dictionary, article Church. 

Mr. Watson is as high authority as can 
be quoted from among English Methodist 
authors, and he goes quite as far as we do 
on the subject of laymen's rights and pow- 
ers, as will be seen from the following ex- 
tracts : 

*' This declaration as to doctrine, in mod- 
dern times is made by confessions or arti- 
cles of faith, in which, if fundamental error 
is found, the evil rests upon the head of that 
church collectively, and upon the members 
individually, every one of whom is bound 
to try all doctrines by the Holy Scriptures, 
and cannot support an acknowledged sys- 
tem of error without guilt." — [Institutes in 
one vol., page 422. 

This necessarily involves the right of lay 
delegation in all assemblies where doc- 
trines and rules of government are settled. 
Our author says again of the power of pas- 
tors : 

" "We have already said, that the members 
of a church, although they have no right to 
obstruct the just exercise of this right, have 
a right to prevent its unworthy exercise." 
Page 423. 

This is granting all, for the right to pre- 
vent an unworthy exercise of power, in- 
cludes the right of determining when it is 
justly and when it is unworthily exercised. 



Now, if the laity have the right of judging 
of the conduct of their rulers, and determin- 
ing when they act right and when they act 
wrong, and of interdicting those acts which 
they believe to be wrong, it is all that we 
contend for. 

In Mr. Wesley's Journal for January 10, 
1746, we find the following : 

" I set out for Bristol. On the road I 
read over Lord King's account of the prim- 
itive church. In spite of the vehement pre- 
judices of my education, I was ready to be- 
lieve that his was a fair and impartial 
draught ; but if so, it would follow that 
bishops and presbyters are essentially of one 
order, and that, originally, every Christian 
congregation was a church independent of 
all others." 

We will close this argument with a few 
extracts from Lord King's work, above re- 
ferred to by Mr. Wesley. 

It should be borne in mind that Lord 
King uses the word " diocese" to denote a 
single congregation, or one local church. 
In those churches, when they become large, 
and before they were divided, there were, no 
doubt, several elders or religious teachers, 
one of whom was necessarily chairman. 
This will account for his referring to the 
bishop and clergy of a diocese. The presi- 
ding minister he calls bishop, and the others 
he calls the clergy. When these churches 
became numerous, no doubt those contigu- 
ous to each other formed a union, and held 
conventions composed of delegates, of min- 
isters, and laymen, from them all, and the 
presiding presbyter was called bishop ; and 
here was the origin of diocesan episcopacy, 
but it was a departure from primitive sim- 
plicity. So, when there had been formed 
several of these associations of churches, 
sometimes called synods, they formed con- 
nections with each other, and held general 
conventions, and the presiding officer of 
these bodies became a bishop of bishops, 
and here was the origin of popery. Such 
is the tendency of power to accumulation. 
Lord King's work covers a period during 
which these changes were taking place, 



CHAP. I.] 



VISIBLE CHUECH ORGANIZATION. 



503 



wliicli will account for such a state of things 
as he sometimes describes, and as is often 
implied in his remarks. At the same time, 
he is clear and decisive on the question of 
laymen's rights ; and as the progress from 
apostolic purity to popish corruptions, was 
by the way of clerical assumptions of pow- 
er, no abatement is to be made from his 
account of the rights of the laity, for no 
departure can have taken place from apos- 
tolic usage in that direction ; while the pow- 
ers which he describes as exercised by the 
ministry may, in part, have been the begin- 
ning of those assumptions which led to 
popery. These remarks will prepare the 
reader's mind for the following extracts 
from Lord King's account of the Primi- 
tive Church. We quote from the Methodist 
Episcopal Book Eoom edition, and refer to 
the page. 

" All the people of a diocese were pres- 
ent at church censures, as Origen describes 
an offender as appearing ' before the whole 
church.' So Clemens Eomanus calls the 
censures of the church ' the things com 
manded by the multitude.' And so the two 
ofiendi]]g sub-deacons and acolyth at Car 
thage were to be tried ' before the whole 
people.' 

" No offenders were restored again to the 
church's peace, without the knowlege and 
consent of the whole diocese ; so Cyprian 
writes, that before they were re-admitted to 
communion ' they were to plead their cause 
before all the people.' And it was ordained 
by an African synod, that except in danger 
of death, or an instantaijeous persecution, 
none should be received into the church's 
peace ' without the knowledge and consent 
of the pfcople.' 

" When the bishop of a church was dead, 
all the people of that church met together 
in one place to choose a new bishop. So 
Sabinus was elected Bishop of Emerita 'by 
the suffrage of all the brotherhood ;' which 
was also the custom throughout all Africa, 
* for the bishop to be chosen in the presence 
of the people.' And so Fabianus was cho- 
sen to be bishop of Rome ' by all the breth- 



ren who were met together in one place for 
that very end." 

" At the ordination of the clergy the 
whole body of the people were present. So 
an African synod, held anno 258, determin- 
ed ' that the ordination of ministers ought 
to be done with the knowledge and in the 
presence of the people, that the people be- 
ing present, either the crimes of the wicked 
may be detected, or the merits of the good 
declared ; and so the ordination may be just 
and lawful, being approved by the suffrage 
and judgment of all.' A.nd Bishop Cyprian 
writes from his exile to all the people of his 
diocese, that ' it had been his constant prac- 
tice in all ordinations to consult their opin- 
ions, and by their common counsels to weigh 
the manners and merits of every one ;' there- 
in imitating the example of the Apostles 
and apostolic men, who ordained none but 
with ' the approbation of the whole church.' " 
—[Pages 36, 37, 38. 

" As soon as they were baptized they 
commenced members of the church univer- 
sal, and of that particular church wherein 
they were so baptized, and became actual 
sharers and exerters of all the priviliges and 
powers of the faithful. 

" Now what the distinct and separate 
powers of the faithful were, must be next 
considered ; several of them, to make the 
discourse under the former head complete, 
we touched there, as their election and choice 
of their bishops, their attestation to those 
that were ordained, and such like, which will 
be unnecessary and tedious to repeat here ; 
and others of them cannot be well separar 
ted from their conjuct acts with the clergy, 
but must, with them, be discoursed of in the 
next head, so that there will be little or noth- 
ing to say here of their discretive and par- 
ticular acts, save that, as they had power to 
elect their bishops, so, if their bishops 
proved afterward scandalous and grossly 
wicked in life, or at least heretical in doc- 
trine, and .apostates from the faith, they 
had power to depose them, and to choose 
others in then- rooms." — [Pages 101, 102. 

" As a bishop was elected by the people 



604 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



[book IV. 



over whom he was to preside, and by the 
ueighbormg bishoiDS, so he was deposed 
by the same ; both which things seera to be 
mtimated in that passage of the foremen- 
tioned synodical epistle, wherein it is said 
that ' the people chiefly have power either to 
choose worthy bishops, or to refuse unwor- 
thy ones.' "—[Page 103. 

" Having thus briefly dispatched the sec- 
ond head, I now proceed to handle the third, 
which respects the conjunct acts of the cler 
gy and laity ; in answer whereunto I find 
that, in general, all things relating to the 
government and policy of the church were 
performed by their joint consent and ad 
ministrations ; ' the people were to do noth- 
ing without the bishop ;' and on the contra- 
ry, ' he did nothing without the knowledge 
and consent of his people.' ' When any let- 
ters came from foreign churches, they were 
received and read before the whole church,' 
and ' the whole church agreed upon com- 
mon letters to be sent to other churches.' 
And so, for all other matters relating to the 
policy of the chnrch, they were managed 
* by the common advice and counsel of the 
clergy and laity,' both concurred to the dis- 
charge of those actions, to recite every par- 
ticular act whereof would be extremely te- 
dious and fruitles." — [Page 104. 

" As for the judges that composed the 
consistory or ecclesiastical court, before 
whom offending criminals were convened, 
and by whom censured, they will appear to 
have been the whole church, both clergy 
and laity ; not the bishop without the peo- 
ple, nor the people without the bishop, but 
both conjunctly constituted that supreme 
tribunal which censured delinquents and 
transgressors, as will be evident from what 
follows." — [Page 109. 

" But as for the legislative, decretive, or 
judicatorial power, that appertained both 
to clergy and laity, who conjunctly made up 
that supreme consistorial court, which was 
in every parish, before which all offenders 
were tried ; and, if found guilty, sentenced 
and condemned. 

" Now that the clergy were members of 



this ecclesiastical court, is a thing so evi- 
dently known and granted by all, as that it 
would be superfluous to heap up many quo- 
tations to prove it, so that I shall but just 
confirm it, after I have proved that which 
may seem more strange, and that is that the 
laity were members thereof, and judges 
therein, being sharers with the clergy in the 
judicial power of the spiritual court."— 
[Page 111. 

" To that large discourse of the primitive 
discipline, which was the subject of the pre- 
ceding chapter, it will be necssary to add 
this observation, that all those judicial acts 
were exerted in and by every single parish, 
every particular church having power to 
exercise discipline on her own members, 
without the concurrency of other churches ; 
else in those places where there might be 
but one church for several miles round, 
which we may reasonably suppose, the mem- 
bers of that church must have traveled 
several, if not scores of miles, to have had 
the consent of other churches, for the 
punishment of their offenders ; but there 
is no need of making this supposition, since 
it was decreed by an African synod, ' that 
every one's cause should be heard where the 
crime was committed.' " — [Pages 127, 128. 
And whosoever will consider the fre- 
quent synods that are mentioned in Cy- 
prian, will find that in his province they 
met at least once, and sometimes twice or 
thrice a year. 

■' As for the members that composed these 
synods, they were bishops, presbyters, dea- 
cons, and deputed laymen in behalf of the 
people of their respective churches. Thus 
at that great synod of Antioch that con- 
demned Paulus Samosatenus, there were 
present ' bishops, presbyters, deacons, and 
the churches of Grod ;' that is, laymen that 
represented the people of their several 
churches. So also we read in an ancient 
fragment in Eusebius, that when the heresy 
of the Moutanists was fixed and preached, 
' tlie faithful, in Asia met together several 
times to examine it, and upon examination 
condemned it.' So also, when there were 



CHAP. I.] 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



505 



some heats in the church of Carthage about 
the restitution of the lajDsed, Cyprian writes 
from his exile that the lapsed should be pa- 
tient till God had restored peace to the 
church, and then there should ' be convened 
a synod of bishops, and of the laity who 
had stood firm during the persecution, to 
consult about and determine their affairs ;' 
which proposition was approved by Moses 
and Maximus, and other Eoman confessors, 
who liked the ' consulting of a synod of 
bishops, presbyters, deacons, confessors, and 
the standing laity ;' as also did the whole 
body of the clergy of the church of Eome, 
who were willing that that affair ' of the 
lapsed should be determined by the common 
counsel of the bishops, presbyters, deacons, 
confessers, and the standing laity.' And 
thus, at that great council held at Carthage, 
anno 258, there were present eighty-seven 
' bishops, together with presbyters, deacons, 
and a great part of the laity.' " — [Pages 
132, 133, 134. 

The preceding must be judged suffi- 
cient, so far as ecclesiastical authority can 
go, and here we dismiss this part of the sub- 
ject. 



SECTION III. 

Written Articles of Faith and Practice. 

I. The churches have a right to frame 
and adopt general rules of faith and prao 
tice, provided they contain nothing contra- 
ry to the Scriptures. 

The right of any religious community to 
commit its rules of faith and practice to 
paper, is so plain that it appears strange 
that any should doubt it. Some, however 
have denied such right, and insisted that to 
do so is to sin against God, and to rebel 
against Christ, the common head and law- 
giver of the church. 

1. Sin is the transgression of the law ; 
but it must appear difficult to see what law 
is violated by simply writing down in a 
book an outline of the truths we ought to 
believe, and the duties we ought to perform 



It is admitted that it would be a wrong act 
to make a false creed ; but to make a true 
creed, which is to write the truth in a book 
cannot violate any law of God or rule of 
Jesus Christ. To deny the right of Chris- 
tians to put what they believe to be truth 
and duty into a book, would be to declare 
it wrong to make books. 'No one will dare 
to maintain that it is wrong to make books 
in which nothing but truth is written, and 
nothing but duty required ; and hence, it 
cannot be maintained that it is necessarily 
wrong to write our rules of faith and prac- 
tice in a book, provided they are true and 
righteous rules of faith and practice, 

2. It may be urged that the wrong of 
creed-making does not consist in writing 
down our views of what Christians ought 
to believe and practice, and in making the 
same into a book, but in adopting the same 
as a standard, or as binding on the mem- 
bers of the church. To this, the reply is 
simple and conclusive. What men have a 
right to believe, express, and put into a 
book, they have a right to promise to obey, 
so long as they shall continue of their pre- 
sent opinion. Divest the act of adopting 
rules of faith and practice of the supersti- 
tions and terrors that have been thrown 
around it by the conduct of those who have 
lorded it over God's heritage, and made 
rules in which those who were required to 
believe and obey them had no voice, to which 
their understanding, will, and conscience 
could never consent, and then undertook to 
enforce them by pains and penalties, and all 
valid objections to written rules will vanish. 
Objectors overlook the simplicity of the 
thing, and draw their support from the 
monster above described. There should 
be, there can be no legitimate power to 
compel a man to subscribe to what he 
does not believe ; and to maintain that 
a man has not a right to subscribe to what 
he does believe, and promise to be governed 
by it so long as he shall continue to believe 
it, is certainly to trifle with the rights of 
humanity. It has been shown, in the pre- 
ceding argument, that men have a right to 



506 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



[book IV. 



embody their views in a book, and it would 
be a strange doctrine that would deny men 
the right of subscribing to, and promising 
to be governed by, what they have a right 
to publish to the world, to mould the senti- 
ments and guide the conduct of others. It 
is plain, then, that men have a right to sub- 
scribe to, and promise to be governed by 
what they honestly believe to be truth and 
duty. 

3. The right to form and subscribe to a 
truthful standard of faith and practice, may 
be seen from a slight view of man's natural 
and inalienable rights as an intelligent and 
morally accountable being. The following 
points are not likely to be disputed by any 
class of Protestant Christians, viz : Men 
have a right to read the Bible for them- 
selves, to understand the Bible for them- 
selves, and to judge for themselves concern- 
ing the faith and duty which it requires of 
them ; to freely speak and publish their 
views of faith and duty ; and to use all the 
purely intellectual and moral influence they 
they can exert to persuade others to em- 
brace the same views of faith and duty 
which they have adopted for themselves. 
This is simply the right of private judg- 
ment, of conscience, and of free discussion. 
To deny it, or any part of it, is to deny to 
the people the right of reading, thinking, 
believing, and speaking for themselves, and 
thereby fall back under the shadows of Po- 
pery. If, then, a written standard of faith 
and practice can be formed and adopted in 
the simple exercise of these rights, it cannot 
necessarily be wrong. The process is this : 
An individual wakes up to his personal re- 
sponsibilities, and, on looking around him, 
finds or thinks he finds fundamental errors 
in the religious community with which he 
is associated, as did Luther, the Reformer. 
No matter whether such errors are written 
in books, or only believed, taught orally, 
and practiced. He compares them with 
the Bible, and is compelled to reject them 
as opposed to his honest views of the teach- 
ing of that Book ; he publicly rejects the 
errors ; discussion follows ; some embrace 



his views, while others oppose him ; and to 
do it more efiectually, they misrepresent his 
principles, as the advocates of error are apt 
to do ; or it may be that they misapprehend 
him. To avoid these difficulties, he makes 
a clear and distinct abstract of the points 
wherein he differs from those who oppose 
him, and writes down these points of his 
faith, and he and those who embrace his 
views put their names to the document, 
here we have a creed, and will any one say 
that the parties to it have transcended their 
natural and inalienable rights in originating 
it ? He who can affirm this will not be 
likely to suffer martyrdom during the pre- 
sent age for his liberal views. It is be- 
lieved that the above remarks fully establish 
the abstract right of constructing and adopt- 
ing written articles of faith and practice. 
4. The utility of written forms of faith 
and practice, and rules of discipline, rests 
upon the superiority of written over unwrit- 
ten law. It is admitted that every fundamen- 
tal principle is contained in the Scriptures : 
but such are the differences of opinion which 
prevail among men concerning what the 
Scriptures teach, that a community, collec- 
tively, can preserve its unity of feeling and 
harmony of action only by settling what 
are, and what are not the teachings of the 
Scriptures on fundamental points. This is 
done, in some way, by all communities ; if 
they have no written rules more than is 
written in the Scriptures, they have the 
substance of such rules, which with them is 
unwritten law, and which, as they hold them, 
possess all the force of law. It cannot be 
otherwise in the present state of the Chris- 
tian world. There is no sect, party, con- 
gregation, church or company of men call- 
ing themselves Christians, who will tolerate 
among them and fellowship all who claim to 
believe and practice according to their own 
understanding of the teachings of the Scrip- 
tures. Now the moment they reject a per- 
son on account of anything he iDclieves or 
practices, he grounding such belief and prac- 
tice upon his understanding of the Scrip- 
tures, that moment they adopt a principle 



CHAP. T.] 



VISIBLE CHURCH OEGANIZATION. 



507 



of interpretation which becomes a rule, 
which is not itself written in the Scriptures. 
It does not affect the principle that this rule 
is not written ; yet, as it is to be applied in 
settling questions of church fellowship, it 
had better be written, as written rules pos- 
sess many advantages over unwritten rules. 
That all communities do actually adopt and 
enforce rules beyond what is found in the 
letter of the Scriptures, is easily made to 
appear. Almost every conceivable contra- 
diction is held by various persons, each 
claiming that his views are the only Scrip- 
tural ones. One illustration, of a moral 
nature, will be sufficient. One class of per- 
sons hold and teach that slavery has been 
instituted by God, and that it is a Bible in- 
stitution, and that it is right to hold, buy, 
and sell human beings as property. This 
they not only hold and teach, but they prac- 
tice it. Some of this class have no written 
creeds ; they denounce all written articles 
of faith and rules of discipline, holding that 
the Scriptures are sufficient. Another class 
of persons hold that slavery is a sin, and 
that all who practice it are sinners ; that to 
hold, buy, and sell human beings as property, 
is a crime for which a person should be ex- 
cluded from the church and Christian fel- 
lowship. 

This view they are quite as confident is 
taught in the Scrptures as their opponents 
are that the Scriptures justify slavery. 
Some of this class also denounce all written 
articles of faith, and rules of practice and 
discipline, insisting that the Scriptures 
alone are sufficient. These two parties can 
not unite, though there is no written creed 
in the way between them ; and though 
they both adopt the Scriptures as their 
only standard of faith and practice, mutu- 
ally condemning all discipline, yet they are 
I as far apart as truth is from falsehood, and 
as heaven is from hell. Each has adopted a 
leading principle — one that slavery is right, 
and the other that slavery is a sin — and 
these principles constitute their respective 
creeds on this subject, and they limit their 
Christian fellowship to those who conform 



to it, and yet neither finds his rule in so 
many words in the Scriptures ; they are. 
rather a deduction from what they consider 
the general principles taught in the Scrip- 
tures. 

Under such circumstances, it must appear 
plain that it is important to settle the 
question of the sinfulness of slavery, and to 
write down the decision, as a means of put- 
ting an end to contention, and for the pur- 
pose of shutting out the elements of discord 
for time to come. It is admitted that if 
all men understood the Scriptures alike 
there would be no use for written articles 
of faith and rules of discipline ;■ but in a 
community in which all agree that each 
has a right to understand the Scriptures 
for himself, and where one insists that the 
Scriptures teach the rightfulness of chattel 
slavery, and another that the Scriptures 
condemn it as one of the worst of crimes, 
there appears to be a clear propriety of 
making a rule on the subject. It will not 
do to say that the Scriptures are sufficient^ 
inasmuch as they cannot agree what the 
Scriptures teach ; and to separate our- 
selves from those whom we cannot fellow- 
ship, and to keep ourselves separate and to 
save contention, we write it down in our 
creed, that slavery is a sin for which men 
should be excluded from Christian fellow- 
ship. This appears to be a better way 
than to leave the meaning of the Scrip- 
tures on the subject an open question for 
perpetual dispute, and apply the anti- 
slavery principle as unwritten law — for all 
who hold it must apply it, to be honest, 
written or unwritten. Here, then, is a 
principle held by a portion of the commu- 
nity which they must apply and enforce in 
their church relations, but which others 
denounce as unscriptural ; hence it is prop- 
er that those who hold it should write it 
down as their view of what the Scriptures 
teach, and as a rule by which they design 
to be governed. When it is written, as it 
is to be applied and enforced, its utility is 
in proportion to the practicability of writ- 
ten in comparison with unwritten law. 



508 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



[book IV. 



The above has been given as a specimen 
selected from a multitude of cases. One 
holds, that, as Christians, we are bound to 
observe religiously the first day of the week ; 
another holds that we are bound, by all 
the sanctions of the moral law to keep 
holy the seventh day of the week, accord- 
ing to the letter of the Old Testament law. 
One holds that there is no baptism but by 
immersion, and that it is unlawful to com- 
mune with any who have not been so bap- 
tised ; while others hold that sprinkling or 
pouring is baptism, and will even commune 
with unbaptised persons. One class of 
persons hold that without a bishop there 
can be no church ; that without an apos- 
tolic succession, there can be no valid min- 
istry, no valid ordinances, and no hope of 
salvation but in the uncovenanted mercies 
of God ; while others hold the validity of 
Presbyterian ordination, and still others 
think Congregational ordination quite suffi- 
cient. All these claim the support of the 
Scriptures for their respective theories ; 
and what to us is more wonderful than all 
this, is the fact that there are others who, 
with all these facts before their eyes, insist 
that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for 
the government of a congregation, without 
any settled rules of interpretation and de- 
fined modes of applying Scriptural princi- 
ples in the shape of a discipline. The truth 
is, the Scriptures cannot be brought to 
bear, and be enforced as a standard of 
church government and rule of dicipline, 
only as the community separate into differ- 
ent congregations, according to their re- 
spective beliefs, so that those who think 
alike are brought into the same association, 
and then their peculiar views and modes of 
procedure constitute their creed, and it is 
none the better because it is not written — 
for when principles are settled, and must be 
applied and enforced, it is best for all par- 
ties that they should be written. If all set- 
tled rules were abolished, and all persons 
holding the above named and other con- 
flicting views were brought into one united 
and anti-sectarian church, or Christian 



community, discussion, strife, contention, 
and separation would be inevitable, and 
would constitute the only way through 
which we could pass back to our present 
condition of even comparative peace. This 
is so plain that it appears wonderful that 
any should overlook it. We urge in con- 
clusion, that well defined and written rules 
on fundamental points, must tend to pro- 
mote the peace and efficiency of the com- 
munity that adopts and is governed by 
them. 

The peace and harmony of a religious 
community must depend upon a clear un- 
derstanding, on the part of the members, of 
the principles, objects, and measures of the 
association, which must be greatly pro- 
moted by having them written and well de- 
fined. It may be supposed by some that 
the union of hearts, and the fellowship of 
the Spirit, is all that is required in a 
Christian community, and that these do 
not depend upon this or that doctrinal be- 
lief, or particular mode of carrying out the 
great principles of Christianity. To this 
it may be replied : 

(1.) The union of hearts and fellowship 
of the spirit contended for, depend for their 
existence upon the views we entertain of 
those with whom we are called upon to 
unite, and to fellowship in the Spirit. The 
more skillful the hypocrite, the more 
likely will he be to command our Christian 
sympathy, and the sanction of our fellow- 
ship ; and simply because we do not know 
his real character. On the other hand, 
let us be wrongly informed, and labor under 
false impressions concerning the best man 
on earth, and while we remain ignorant of 
his real character we can feel no real union 
of heart and fellowship of the Spirit with 
him. These remarks are made simply to 
show that we may be deceived, and that 
our union of hearts and fellowship of the 
Spirit with our fellow-beings does not de- 
pend so much upon what they really are, 
as upon what we think them to be. This 
point being gained, it should be remarked, 

(2.) That though a well defined system 



CHAP. I.] 



VISIBLE CHUBCH ORGANIZATION. 



509 



of faith and practice cannot remove our 
liability to be deceived by the hypocritical 
in heart, it can define what are the essen- 
tial external features of Christian charac- 
ter, and hence, what men must believe and 
do to entitle them to our Christian fellow- 
ship. This is all important ; for as our 
fellowship, as shown above, depends upon 
what we think men to be, and not upon 
what they really are in heart, the members 
of a religious community can be united in 
heart, and in the fellowship of the Spirit 
only by adopting a common and clearly 
defined standard of Christian character, to 
which every member must be conformed, 
or by which he must be tried, rejected, and 
excluded. It is freely admitted that there 
are some points of faith and practice, con- 
cerning which men may differ without 
affecting their Christian characters, and of 
course without impairing their fellowship 
for each other ; but then there are other 
points which must be beheved, and works 
which must be performed by our fellow be- 
ings, before we can believe them to be 
Christians, and, of course, without which 
we cannot fellowship them as Christians. 
To define these fundamental points in faith 
and practice is the object of articles of re 
ligit)n and rules of discipline. Now, sup 
pose a Christian community to have no 
well defined rules on these points, as it is 
known that men differ concerning what is 
and what is not fundamental in Christian 
ity, they are liable at once to differ con 
cerning the qualifications of their own 
members, and the fellowship of the Spirit 
for which the non-creedist contends as suffi' 
cient cannot exist, for want of uniformity 
in faith and practice. As men differ con- 
cerning what is absolutely essential to 
Christian character, and as no man can 
fellowship another as a Christian who is 
wanting in any part of what he believes to 
be essential, union of heart and the fellow- 
ishp of the Spirit must be limited to those 
who agree concerning what is and what is 
not fundmental in Christianity. A settled 
and well defined creed and polity, therefore, 



embracing these fundamental points, must 
tend to promote the peace and harmony of 
every religious community. 

II. The objections which have been 
urged against written articles of faith and 
rules of practice are all untenable and are 
refuted as follows. 

I. It has often been objected to written 
rules of faith and practice, that they are sub- 
stitutes for the Scriptures, and tend to set 
them aside as the supreme law of the church. 
This is a mere assumption, which is not sus- 
tained by any facts. To it we reply, 

(1.) Those denominations who have written 
articles of faith and rules of discipline, are 
as firm believers in, and as zealous defenders 
of the Scriptures as the few who repudiate 
all written creeds. Nor can it be shown 
that their written rules are less in accord- 
ance with the injunctions of the Scriptures 
than are the unwritten rules and forms of 
the objectors. Moreover, take the actual 
faith of the parties on personal inquiry, and 
the actual administrative proceedings of 
their respective churches, and it will not 
appear that those who have written creeds 
and written rules of discipline are less con- 
formed to the Scriptures than those who 
condemn all written forms of faith and pol- 
ity as an abandonment of the Scriptures. 

These are facts, and being facts, they 
prove that the objection is a mere assump- 
tion, containing not the slightest degree of 
practical truth. 

(2.) It is afact that cannot be denied, that 
the Scriptures have failed, and do still fail 
as a rule of faith and form of discipline, 
because they have not secured such a uni- 
formity among professed Christians as is 
essential to Christian fellowship. This can- 
not be charged on written forms, because 
the evil exists among those who condemn 
all written creeds ; they are not sufficiently 
agreed among themselves to fellowship each 
other and unite and co-operate in the same 
church. To prevent as much of the evil 
and confusion as possible, growing out of 
this failure of the Scriptures, which itself 
grows out of a misunderstanding of them, 



510 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



[book IV. 



those who believe in written creeds intro- 
duce them, for the purpose of settling the 
important question of what is and what is 
not essential to Christian fellowship. When 
we say the Scriptures have failed to secure 
all their legitimate ends as a system of doc- 
trine, rule of duty, and form of church 
discipline, we affirm no more than is fear- 
fully proved by the wickedness and irregu- 
larity of this less than half reformed world. 
But when the Scriptures fail practically 
to secure that uniformity in faith and prac- 
tice which is essential to the peace and 
harmony of a religious community, the fault 
is not in the Scriptures themselves, but in 
man's imperfect understanding of them, 
whereby a construction is given them which 
the Holy Ghost never designed. It must 
be difficult to prove that the Holy Ghost 
could indite a book which man could not 
pervert in the exercise of his perverted will, 
depraved heart, and darkened understand- 
ing. 

(3.) When creeds are formed, they are not 
adopted as a substitute for the Scriptures, 
but only as a declaration of what the Scrip- 
tures are believed to teach. They are merely 
an expression of what their subscribers be- 
lieve the Scriptures contain on the points 
they embrace. If men could agree what 
the Scriptures teach, and what they do 
not teach, there would be no necessity for 
creeds, but it is notorious that they can- 
not ; they put different interpretations upon 
the same texts, and creeds are only deter- 
minate modes of interpretation, and not a 
substitute for the text itself. 

That this is the true view of the case is 
clear, from the fact that all written creeds 
contain one article asserting the inspiration 
of the Scriptures, and their entire sufficiency 
in all matters of faith and duty. But while 
these are asserted, to prevent the Scriptures 
from being perverted by the ignorant or 
vicious, they form a clear abstract of their 
teachings on fundamental points, and this 
constitutes the creed, which consists of two 
great and comprehensive points : First, a 
declaration that the Scriptures are a suffi- 



cient and only authoritative rule of faith 
and duty; and secondly, that they teach 
such doctrines, duties, and modes of action. 
This is so far from being a substitute for 
the Scriptures, that the creed itself is the 
strongest effort that can be made to secure 
a belief in the sufficiency of the Scriptures, 
and to prevent anything being substituted 
for them. Those who condemn all written 
creeds may much more easily substitute 
their oral opinions for the Scriptures, for 
their doctrines and modes of proceeding be- 
ing unwritten, it is not so convenient to 
compare them with the Scriptures and test 
them. There is an intangibility about un- 
written doctrines and forms of discipline, 
which is better adapted to the advocates 
of error than to the defenders of truth. 

2. It is often objected to written creeds 
that if they are intended merely as an ex- 
pression of what the Scriptures teach, they 
assume that the creed-makers of the present 
day can express themselves more clearly, 
forcibly, and in a manner less liable to be mis- 
understood than did the Holy Ghost when 
he spake through the inspired writers. It 
is said, if the creed is not a more clear -ex- 
pression of the truth than the Scriptures, it 
is useless, and we had better go to the Scrip- 
tures themselves without the creed ; but if 
the creed is a more clear expression of the 
truth than the Scriptures, then have our 
creed-makers excelled the Holy Ghost. 

We have stated this objection in what 
we consider its strongest light, and will pro- 
ceed to answer it. 

(1.) A written creed may be convenient 
and useful, without supposing it to be more 
skilfully indited than the Scriptures. The 
Bible is a large book, and though every 
part is important to make it complete as a 
whole, yet a very small portion of it relates 
to those practical points usually embodied 
in a creed and discipline. Much is histori- 
cal, and much more is ceremonial. Those 
who take the Scriptures as their only stan- 
dard of faith and rule of discipline, will re- 
fer you to but a few leading texts to justify 
their belief and mode of proceeding. It 



CHAP. I.] 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



511 



must, then, appear convenient and useful 
to make an abstract of the points involved 
in church government from the vast vol- 
ume. 

(2.) It is not assuming a superiority over 
the Holy Ghost, to say that we can state 
our views of what we believe the Scrip- 
tures teach in a manner less liable to be 
misconstrued than the Scriptures. One 
fact must settle this point. If it were not 
so there would be as great a variety of opin- 
ions concerning the meaning of a creed 
among those who adopt it, as there is among 
those who believe the Scriptures, concern- 
ing what they teach ; but such is nto the fact. 

It is true that there have been diflFerences 
of opinion concerning the meaning of some 
points in a creed, but they are not very 
common, and when they arise, they can be 
settled by altering the language of the rules 
so that it will not admit of but the one 
construction. Take a few examples. Men 
who believe the Scriptures with all their 
hearts, are unable to agree what the Holy 
Ghost teaches concerning the mode of bap- 
tism, and whether or not infants are to be 
baptized. Now it is written in our creed 
as follows : " The baptism of young child- 
ren is to be retained in the church." " Let 
every adult person, and the parents of 
every child to be baptized, have the choice 
either of immersion, sprinkling or pour- 
ing." 

Our Baptist brethren dispute us on this 
question, " What do the Scriptures teach ?" 
but all understand the creed, and there is 
no dispute concerning its meaning. Have 
we, then, excelled the Holy Ghost ? 

Men cannot agree concerning what is 
called the doctrine of the Trinity. They 
disagree concerning what the Scriptures 
teach on the subject, but one party has 
made a creed on the subject in the following 
words : 

" There is but one living and true God, 
everlasting, of infinite power, wisdom, and 
goodness ; the maker and preserver of all 
things, visible and invisible. And in unity of 
this Godhead there are three persons, of one 



substance, power, and eternity — the Father, 
the Son [the Word,] and the Holy Ghost." 

This is understood, and while the contro- 
versy rages concerning what the Scriptures 
teach, there is no dispute concerning what 
this creed teaches. Again, men cannot 
agree what the Scriptures teach concerning 
the Sabbath. Some contend that Satur- 
day is to be observed as a Sabbath, and 
others that Sunday is to be observed as a 
Sabbath, and still others contend that under 
the Gospel we are required to observe no 
day as a Sabbath. Well, our creed for- 
bids " the profaning the day of the Lord, 
either by doing ordinary work therein, or 
by buying or selling." No one can fail to 
understand this ; and while they continue 
to dispute about what the Scriptures teach, 
all will agree that our creed requires the 
observance of Sunday, or the first day of 
the week, called " the Lord's day." The 
objector must now withdraw his objection, 
or take upon himself the responsibility of 
insisting that the Holy Ghost has really 
been excelled by creed-makers ; for the fact 
that the creed is less liable to be misunder- 
stood than the Scriptures, cannot be denied. 

(3.) Admitting the entire sufficiency of 
the Scriptures for all the purposes for which 
they are intended, and still there will be room 
enough for creeds as a matter of conven- 
ience and utility. The objection overlooks 
the fact that the Scriptures were not in- 
tended to settle everything, so as to leave 
nothing to be determined by the church, as 
her changing circumstances and wants may 
demand. It is the design of the Scriptures 
to settle fundamental principles, and this 
they do, though men often fail to understand 
them. All fundamental principles are doubt- 
less contained in the Scriptures, and when 
honest men fail to adopt these fundamental 
principles, it is because they misunderstand 
the sacred text ; but there are many other 
things left to the judgment of the church, 
which she must settle for herself as cases 
arise, and occasions require. Things must 
be done for which it is convenient to have 
settled rules, and for which there is no set- 



512 



VISIBLE CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 



[BOOK. IV. 



A few illus- 



tled rules in tlie Scriptures, 
trations will be sufficient. 

No one can read the Scriptures without 
being convinced of the duty of maintaining 
church order in some form, and to do this 
we know that officers must be chosen ; but 
precisely how they are to be nominated and 
inducted into office is not explained. We 
know that the mind of the church must be 
expressed in some way, amounting, in prin- 
ciple at least, to what we call a vote ; but 
the New Testament nowhere tells us how 
a vote is to be taken, whether by the voice, 
or by show of hands, or by ballot. These 
are matters which are left to the common 
sense of the church, to be settled as con- 
venience may dictate. 

But there are more serious matters not 
settled by express law. Jesus Christ says, 
" All things whatsoever ye would that men 
should do unto you, do ye even so to them." 
Here a general principle is settled which 
bears upon all the social relations of life, but 
the mode of application is not settled. Two 
men meet upon the highway under equal 
circumstances, and we know that the golden 
rule requires each to give half the road, but 
it does not determine whether it shall be the 
right hand or the left hand half. So our 
obligation to support Christian worship is 
clearly settled as a general principle, and 
from it must follow the conclusion that we 
are bound to provide a suitable place for 
worship, and attend it at suitable times ; 
but no rule in the New Testament deter- 
mines the precise place where we are to 
build our house of worship, how large we 
shall build it, what form, nor yet how often 
we shall attend worship, whether once, 
twice, or thrice on the Sabbath, and whether 
at all, or on how many other days of the 
week. This proves beyond a doubt that to 
form written rules, does not suppose that we 
can indite plainer and less likely to be mis- 
understoood than the Holy Spirit, but only 
that the Scriptures were designed to settle 
general principles, and that we undertake 
to do, by our rules, what the Scriptures 
have not done, what they were never de- 



signed to do for us, but what they have left 
us free to do for ourselves. 

3. It is some times objected to written 
creeds, that they are the cause of the differ- 
ences of opinion among Christians, and that 
they produce the sectarian divisions and 
bigotry which all must admit exist to a pain- 
ful extent. After what has been said above, 
this objection may soon be disposed of. In 
reply, it should be remarked, 

(1.) The objection puts the cause for the 
effect, and the effect for the cause. It is 
the differences of opinion which make the 
creeds, and not the creeds the differences Of 
opinion. It is admitted that when any set 
of theological views are embodied in a writ- 
ten creed, as the acknowledged standard of 
a religious community, it may tend to in- 
crease the number of those holding such 
views, and render their abandonment less 
likely ; but this is an argument in favor of 
a written creed, rather than- against it. It 
proves that truth embodied in a written 
creed is less likely to be supplanted by er- 
ror, but it does not prove that creeds multi- 
ply sects, for if creeds strengthen and in- 
crease the sects that adopt them, they must 
tend to lesson the number of sects, for the 
larger each sect is, the less there must be in 
number. 

But that sects make creeds and not creeds 
sects, is too plain to admit of doubt. New 
creeds are brought into existence by new 
opinions which none of the existing sects 
can be persuaded to adopt. New religious 
opinions originate in the church, not out of 
it, and those who embrace new opinions do 
not desire to leave their associations and go 
out leaving many interests behind, to organ- 
ize a new sect, and do it only as a last re- 
sort to maintain their new views, when they 
have failed to impress them upon the old 
sect. Could they convert their associates J 
to their new views, they would not leave 
them. The organization of new sects is 
impelled by the force of pre-existing con- 
flicting views, and of course conflicting op- 
inions produce sects, and not sects conflict- 
ing opinions. 



CHAP. II.] 



THE MINISTEY. 



513 



(2.) If creeds alone produced sects, there 
could be no sect without a creed, which is 
contradicted by matter of fact. The few 
sects that exist without written rules, are 
none the less sects on that account ; nor 
are they any the less tenacious for their pe- 
culiar views ; nor will they any sooner fel- 
lowship those who differ from them than 
those who write their views in books, and 
call it a creed. The no-creed sects have 
just as much creed about their religion as 
others. The only difference is, others write 
their creeds, while theirs is unwritten ; but 
it is none the less a creed. Ask the one 
what his views are, and he will show you 
his creed, which is his written opinions, for 
the support of which he will refer you to 
the Bible ; ask the other what he believes, 
and he will repeat his unwritten opinions, 
and appeal to the Bible for their support. 
Now who can see what is the difference ? 
It must be confessed that it is difficult to 
see any, unless it is that those who publish 
their opinions act a more honest part, and 
leave themselves less room to disguise their 
real views, or to assail others, without pre- 
senting anything tangible to be assailed. 



CHAPTER II. 



THE MINISTEY. 



SECTION I. 

The Gospel Ministry was established by 
Christ as a permanent Institution, 

The fact asserted as the title of this sec- 
tion involves several important points. 

1. That the ministry of the Gospel is a 
permanent institution is inferred from the 
fact that there never was a religion main- 
tained without a ministry. 

(1.) The patriarchal age or dispensation 
had its teachers, its prophets and its priests. 
33 



From the creation of the world to the time 
of Moses there was no written law or reve- 
lation from God, a period of almost 2,500 
years, and yet God left not himself without 
teachers m the world, nor the people with- 
out the means of instruction. Gen. v. 24 : 
" And Enoch walked with God, and he was 
not ; for God took him." Jude. 14, 15 : 
" And Enoch also the seventh from Adam, 
prophesied concerning these, saying, Behold 
the Lord cometh and ten thousand of his 
saints to execute judgment upon all, and to 
convince all that are ungodly among them 
of all their ungodly deeds." 

Enoch was a preacher, a religious teach- 
er. He taught the doctrine of a general 
judgment and of a just retribution for our 
conduct. He taught the duty of repen- 
tance for all wrong deeds. " To convince 
all that are ungodly" implies repentance- 
He enforced his preaching by a godly life. 
He walked with God. 

2. Peter ii. 5 : " God spared not the old 
world but saved Noah the eighth person, 
a preacher of righteousness." Noah was 
the third from Enoch, so it may be seen 
that these obscure ages were blessed with 
teachers. 

That Abraham was a preacher of righte- 
ousness during his day will not be denied. 
It was with reference to him and the other 
patriarchs that God said, " touch not mine 
annointed and do my prophets no harm." 
Gen. xiv. 18 : " And Melchizedek king of 
Salem, brought forth bread and wine, and 
he was the priest of the most high God." 
The above quotations show that the Patriar- 
chal age was blessed with religious teachers 
to whom it pertained to impart religious in- 
struction, and to attend to the service of re- 
ligion in contradistinction from other men. 

(2.) The Mosaic dispensation had its 
priests and its teachers of religion. There 
were not only the sons of Aaron, who were 
priests by a standing law of the system, but 
there were others who were more directly 
the teachers of the doctrines and duties of 
religion. Samuel, Elijah and Elisha were 
of this number. There were even whole 



514 



THE MINISTRY. 



[book IV. 



schools of this class of teachers. One of 
these schools was established at Naioth in 
Eamah, as we learn from 1 Sam. xix. 18- 
24. Another of these schools was at Beth- 
el, and yet another at Jericho, as we learn 
from 2 Kings, ii. 5. From Jericho, we are 
told, that "fifty men, sons of prophets," went 
to see the departm^e of Elijah. 

It is supposed that these schools of the 
prophets were merged in the Jewish syna- 
gogues, which v/ere places of religious wor- 
ship and of religious instruction, where the 
law was explained by authorized teachers. 
Previous to the establishment of the syna- 
gogues for the better convenience of relig- 
ious instruction, there being no regular 
house where the people and teachers met, 
those who desired religious instruction visit- 
ed the prophets at their own houses, hence 
it may be seen that these schools of the 
prophets were establishments where the 
prophets resided, and whither the people re- 
sorted for religious instruction. 

2 Kings iv. 23 : " And he said, where- 
fore wilt thou go to him (the prophet) to- 
day? It is neither new moon nor Sab- 
bath." From this we learn that there were 
set times, new moons and Sabbaths, on 
which it was common for the people to visit 
.the prophets. We see then that the Mosaic 
system had its authorized teachers, and its 
regular system of religious instruction. 

The Christian dispensation, under which 
we live, has its teachers which were at the 
commencement appointed directly by divine 
authority. Jesus Christ appointed twelve 
apostles to be witnesses of his death and 
resurrection, to preach his Gospel, and to 
establish his church. These apostles thus 
appointed by Christ, did by their own au 
thority, or else in conjunction with the 
churches, appoint other teachers, by which 
they settled the Christian system perma- 
nently as a system of religious instruction 
The very fact that Christ appointed teach 
ers, and that those teachers took measures 
for the appointment of others, to carry on 
the work of preaching the (xospel after their 
decease, furnishes conclusive evidence that 



the system provides for the perpetuity of the 
Christian ministry. 

It is then proved that religious instruc- 
tion, by authorized teachers, is one essential 
link in the economy of Christianity, and 
from the nature of the evidence and the cir- 
cumstance of the case, this feature of Chris- 
tianity is as perpetual as the system itself. 

Christianity was established by the ap- 
pointment of religious teachers, with ar- 
rangements for the increase of their number 
as the work should enlarge, and for supply- 
ing their places as they should be taken out 
of the world. 

2 Tim. ii. 2 : " The things that thou hast 
heard of me among many witnesses, the same 
commit thou to faithful men who shall be 
able to teach others also." 

Here we have a provision and a direction 
which looks forward to the perpetuity of the 
ministry, a succession of ministers. It is 
not a succession of the laying on of hands, 
but a succession of qualified persons by in- 
struction. 

2. The necessity of a ministry devoted to 
the work of religious instruction, considered 
in connection with the economy of the Gos- 
pel, furnishes a strong argument in support 
of the perpetuity of the Christian ministry. 
If there are no ministers who are the au- 
thorized teachers of religion, a consequence 
is, the obligation to teach and enforce the 
doctrines and precepts of Christianity, does 
not rest upon one class of Christians more 
than another, but must rest equally upon 
all Christians. If, then, one man is not 
more than another man, under obligation to 
preach the Gospel, it must depend wholly 
upon men to say, whether the Gospel shall 
be preached or not ; for all men cannot be 
required to preach it, since, in that case, 
there would be no one to preach it to, nor 
any special necessity of its being preached, 
for he whose duty it is to preach the Gospel 
to others, cannot be under special need of 
having it preached to him ; and as all men 
cannot be required to preach the Gospel, no 
man can be bound to preach it, unless there 
be a regular class of teachers, as such, in 



CHAP. II.] 



THE MINISTRY. 



515 



contradistinction from Christians in general, 
for without such class, no one man can be 
required to preach it more than all men. 

It is clear, then, that Tvithout a ministry, 
there can be no regular religious instruc- 
tion. This would make religion a matter 
of less economy than anything else. 

The Gospel is a system of instruction. 
Christ, the master was a teacher, and be- 
fore he left the world, he appointed others 
to preach the gospel after his ascension. 
He sent them out under this solemn and 
world-wide commission, " Go teach all na- 
tions. Go ye into all the world and preach 
the Gospel to every creature ; and lo, I am 
with you always, even unto the end of the 
world." 

The Gospel contemplates the instruction 
of the ignorant, until the whole world shall 
be enlightened, and, of course, it contains 
provisions for carrying out its own gracious 
and glorious designs. 

A single text will show this. Kom. x. 
13-15 : " Whosoever calleth on the name 
of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall 
they call on him in whom they have not be- 
lieved ? and how shall they believe in him 
of whom they have not heard ? and how 
shall they hear without a preacher? and 
how shall they preach except they be sent ?" 

The Gospel also contemplates the perpet- 
ual culture and building up of the church 
by means of a ministry. Take one text 
among many. Eph. iv. 11, 13 : " And he 
gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; 
and some, evangelists ; some, pastors and 
teachers ; for the perfecting of the sairts, 
for the work of the ministry, for the edify- 
ing of the body of Christ." 

The whole work of the ministry, is per- 
petually required from its very nature, and 
this work can be done, only by a regularly 
appointed ministry. 

3. The provisions which the Scriptures 
make for the support of the ministry, prove 
it to be a permanent institution of divine 
appointment. 

That the ministers of religion were re- 
wared under the law, no one will deny. On 



this ground we might raise an argument 
from analogy, but will let that pass. But 
our appeal is to the ]S"ew Testament. 

Matt. x. 10 : " Provide no scrip for your 
journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, 
nor yet staves, for the workman is worthy 
of his meat." 

This, though it does not contain a perma- 
nent rule, expresses a permanent principle, 
that the laborer is worthy of his hire. 

1 Cor. ix. 6-11 : " Or I only and Barna- 
bas, have not we power to forbear work- 
ing? Who goeth a warfare at any time, at 
his own charges ? who planteth a vineyard, 
and eateth not the fruit thereof? or who 
feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk 
thereof? Say I these things as a man ? or 
saith not the law the same also ? For it is 
written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not 
muzzle the mouth of the ox that trendeth 
out the corn. Doth God take care for ox- 
en? Or saith he it altogether for our 
sakes? For our sakes no doubt, this is 
written; that he that plougheth should 
plough in hope ; and that he that thresheth 
in hope should be partaker of his hope. If 
we have sown unto you spiritual things, is 
it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal 
things ?" 

(1.) The apostle here clearly asserts the 
right of ministers to a support. This he 
argues, not as a special case, but as a general 
principle and settled arrangement. He is 
careful to disclaim it as his own doctrine, 
and to assert it as the doctrine of God. 

(2.) The figures which the apostle uses 
to illustrate this principle give increased 
force to the argument. "Who goeth a 
warfare at his own charges ? Who plant- 
eth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit ? 
Who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk 
thereof? That he that plougheth should 
plough in hope. That he that thresheth in 
hope, should be partaker of his hope." 

Gal. vi. 6 : " Let him that is taught in 
the word communicate to him that teacheth 
in all good things." 

2 Tim. ii. 4, 6 : '' No man that wareth 
entangleth himseif with the affairs of this 



516 



THE MINISTRY. 



[book IV. 



life, that he may please him that hath chosen 
him to be a soldier. The husbandman that 
laboreth must be first partaker of the 
fruit." 

2 Cor. xi. 1,8 : '' Have I committed an 
offence in abusing myself that I might 
preach to you the Gospel of God freely ? I 
robbed other churches, taking wages of 
them to do you service." 

These texts are too plain to be misunder- 
stood. It is perfectly clear from them that 
the Gospel contemplates a permanent min- 
istry. These principles are left to be car- 
ried out by the Christian zeal and benevo- 
lence of the churches. No minister can, 
consistently receive any but a voluntary 
support, yet the people are held responsible 
to God to render that support. But the 
point is that the ministry is a permanent 
institution, and that is proved. 

4. A living ministry is God's declared 
instrumentality of saving the world. 

" For after that, in the wisdom of God, 
the world by wisdom knew not God, it 
pleased God by the foolishness of preaching 
to save them that believe." 1 Cor. i 21. 

Preaching supposes a preacher, or preach- 
ers, and preachers, as an appointed iustru- 
mentality of prosecuting and finishing such 
a continuous work, supposes a ministry as 
an essential and abiding institution of the 
Gospel. If it pleased God, in his economy, 
to save them that believe, by the foohshness 
of preaching, the work of salvation cannot 
proceed, only so long as the preaching is 
continued, and there can be preaching only 
so long as there shall be preachers ; there 
must, therefore, be a ministry attached to 
the Gospel, at all times and in all places, as 
its instrumental power by which God makes 
its saving influence known. 



SECTION II. 

The Mode of Ministerial Appointment. 

I. Such a ministry as has been described 
as a prominent Gospel Institution, supposes 
some continuous method of appointment. 



As ministers continue not by reason of 
death, without such method of appointment, 
the ministry would become extinct, and the 
work of salvation through the foolishness 
of preaching, would cease. A point so vital 
in God's economy, cannot have been left to 
chance, or to the choice of men, indepen- 
dently of special obligation imposed upon 
some minds to preach the Gospel, in contra- 
distinction from others. I admit that the 
whole church may be called to preach the 
Gospel, according to ability, opportunity, 
and necessity, but the whole church does not 
constitute the ministry, which was given 
when Christ ascended up on high, of which 
it is said, Eph. iv. 11, 12 : " And he gave 
some. Apostles ; and some prophets ; and 
some, evangelists ; and some pastors and 
teachers, for the perfecting of the saints for"^ 
the work of the ministry, for the edifying 
of the body of Christ." 

That the members of the church gene- 
rally preached, as they possessed ability, and 
as occasions called, in the apostolic age, 
there can be no doubt. We read. Acts viii. 
4, not of the minisery, but of the whole 
church, " they that were scattered abroad, 
went everywhere preaching the word." 
Many who thus preached must have been 
engaged in some of the usual occupations 
in life as a means of support. Some of 
them may not have possessed gifts which 
woald have justified their entire devotion to 
the work of the ministry, and yet they could 
be useful in some spheres and circumstances, 
just as many laymen are now useful, some 
of whom might be less so, if they were to 
assume the entire work and responsibilities 
of the ministry. But at the same time, 
while all the church labored as they could 
for the promotion of the cause of God, there 
was a ministry, devoted wholly to the work, 
and who were under the most solemn charge, 
not to " entangle themselves with the af- 
fairs of this life," but to " study to show 
themselves approved unto God, workmen 
that need not to be ashamed, rightly divi- 
ding the word of truth." Such were com- 
manded to " give attendance to reading, to 



CHAP. II.] 



THE MINISTEY. 



517 



exhortation, to doctrine ; to meditate upon 
these things ; to give themselves wholly to 
them, that their profiting might appear to 
all." 

There must then be some method of ap- 
pointment to render the ministry perpetual. 
How then are ministers appointed to office ? 
God has reserved to himself the right of 
designating his own ministers, while he has 
granted to each church, yea, made it the 
duty of each church, to examine into the 
evidence which each person may show of an 
appointment by God to the work of the min- 
istry, who asks of them a hearing, or a 
commendation as a minister of the New 
Testament. That God can call a Christian 
to the ministry, none can doubt, who believe 
in the direct influence of the Holy Ghost. 
He, who by the Holy Ghost can convict 
sinners and work repentance in their hearts ; 
he who can by the same Spirit, justify, re- 
generate, and witness with their spirits that 
they are the children of God, can work in 
the heart a belief that God calls them to 
preach the Gospel. The church in judging 
of a particular case, must decide from a 
view of the applicants piety, natural and 
acquired abilities; gifts and general adapta- 
tion for the work. 

The essential elements which constitute a 
Gospel minister may be stated as follows : 

1. A sound Christian experience, charac- 
ter, and life. 

2. An ability, natural and acquired, suf- 
ficient to render the person acceptable and 
useful as a preacher, in the field where he 
proposes to labor. 

3. An impression or conviction that it is 
his duty to preach, written upon his mind 
by the spirit of God. 

4. A desire or willingness on the part of 
the people to hear him preach, if he be re- 
moved in his locality from all organized 
churches ; but the sanction of the church 
to which he belongs, if he be in circurnstan- 
ces to belong to an organized church. 
Should a layman of piety and ability be 
thrown into a community where there were 
no churches, and no ministers, he might 



preach to them the truth, and if God blessed 
his labors he might organize a church, and 
administer to them, and on their election we 
believe he might be to them a valid minis- 
ter. This, however, is not likely to occur, 
and should it occur, it would be an excep- 
tion to a general rule ; the general rule, 
therefore, is that a person must have the 
sanction of the church to which he belongs. 
This is necessary, to prevent disorder, and 
even disgrace. If a man is really called of 
God to the work, the people will find it out, 
and he will find a congregation somewhere 
that will desire to hear him. His way may 
be hedged up for a time ; but if he is really 
called to the work, and is pious and faithful, 
God in his providence will open his way 
in due time, and impress the church with 
the fact of such call. The church may 
withhold its sanction from a true man for 
a time, but the more frequent error is in 
giving its sanction to those whom God never 
called. 

11. Some appropriate method of induct- 
ing a minister into office appears proper, 
commonly called ordination. 

1. When a person proposes to devote him- 
self to the work of the ministry, and has 
obtained the sanction of the church, it is 
proper that he should, by some impressive 
rite or service, be inducted and set apart to 
the sacred calling and office, and the laying 
on of hands with prayer is unobjectionable. 
This practice appears to be appropriate 
and solemn, and we adhere to it because we 
cannot substitute any form of induction 
which would appear more impressive. Some 
form of induction appears proper, and it 
should be in accordance with the responsi- 
bilities and solemnities of the office ; and 
the laying on of hands appears suited to 
the occasion, not only from the fact that 
there is no law against it, but also from the 
fact that we have various examples of it in 
the Scriptures, though it was for other pur- 
poses. Jacob laid his hands on the heads 
of the sons of Joseph when he blessed them ; 
Jesus Christ laid his hands upon little chil- 
dren and blessed them ; the Apostles laid 



518 



THE MINISTRY. 



[book IV. 



their hands on the seven persons appointed 
to take charge of the poor fund, (Acts vi. 
6). The prophets and teachers at Antioch 
laid their hands upon Paul and Barnabas, 
when they were about to enter upon an im- 
portant mission. Though in none of these 
cases was the imposition of hands employed 
as a means of inducting persons into the 
Christian ministry, yet it was done on sol- 
emn occasions ; and, though it is not bind- 
ing on us, it cannot fail to suggest the ap- 
propriateness of the laying on of hands with 
prayer, when we admit a person to the office 
of the ministry, as a means of adding to 
the solemnity of the service. And though 
the presence of the clergy is not essential to 
a valid ministry, yet where the presence of 
clergymen can be secured, it is most proper 
that they should officiate. These are mat- 
ters of order, which every religious commu- 
nity may arrange to suit itself, so long as 
nothing is done which contravenes the law of 
Christ. 

2. The laying on of hands is not believed 
to be essential to a valid ministry. To 
prove the necessity of the imposition of 
hands, it should be made plain, beyond a 
doubt, that Jesus Christ or his Apostles 
commanded it to be observed in consecra- 
ting ministers. If it could be even proved 
that the Apostles practiced it, it would not 
prove it binding on us, for they practiced 
many other things which we feel ourselves 
at liberty to omit. But there is no com- 
mand for the imposition of hands as a rite 
of induction into the ministry. Nor is 
there one clear example, which proves that 
the Apostles ever laid their hands on a 
single person, for the purpose of confer- 
ring the office of the Christian minis- 
try. This point has often been taken for 
granted, but a little examination will show 
upon what slender grounds it has been 
done. 

Let us now glance at those texts which 
speak of the laying on of hands. There are 
but five texts that can possibly be consid- 
ered as relating to the subject : 

Acts vi. 6 : " Whom they set before the 



Apostles, and when they had prayed they 
laid their hands upon them." 

These men were appointed, by this act, 
to take charge of the poor fund, and see 
that it was impartially distributed among 
the widows. It therefore proves nothing 
about inducting persons into the ministry 
by the imposition of hands. 

Acts xiii. 1-3 : " Now there were in the 
church that was at Antioch certain proph- 
ets and teachers ; as Barnabas, and Simeon 
that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cy- 
rene, and Manaen, which had been brought 
up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 

" As they ministered to the Lord, and 
fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me 
Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto 
I have called them. 

" And when they had fasted and prayed, 
and laid their hands on them, they sent them 
away." 

This could not have been an induction 
into the Christian ministry, for more reasons 
than one : 

1. Paul was called and constituted an 
Apostle by Jesus Christ, twelve years be- 
fore this transaction, of which he makes 
the following declaration : 

Gal. i. 15-17 : " But when it pleased God, 
who separated me from my mother's womb, 
and called me by his grace, to reveal his 
Son in me, that I might preach him among 
the heathen ; immediately I conferred not 
with flesh and blood ; neither went I up to 
Jerusalem to them which were Apostles be- 
fore me ; but I went into Arabia, and re- 
turned again unto Damascus." 

2. About the same time — that is, twelve 
years before this transaction — the church at 
Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch to 
preach the Gospel to them ; and he did 
preach it ; and it is said " he was a good 
man, and full of the Holy Ghost, and much 
people was added unto the Lord." (See 
Acts xi. 22-24.) Then Barnabas went to 
Tarsus and sought after Paul, and brought 
him to Antioch, and they preached there a 
whole year. Then they were both sent by 
the church to Jerusalem, and they fulfilled 



CHAP. II.] 



THE MINISTRY. 



519 



their mission and returned. (Acts xi. 30, 
and chap. xii. 25.) After all this, we can- 
not suppose that the prophets and teachers 
at Antioch laid their hands on the heads of 
Paul and Barnabas as a means of inducting 
them into the Christian ministry. 

But what, then, was the nature of the 
transaction ? We regard it as extraordi- 
nary. These men were ministers, and had 
preached the Gospel for twelve years ; but 
now, God called them to go on a special 
mission to the Gentiles, on a more extended 
plan than their former operations, and it 
was a solemn separation, not to the office 
of the ministry, but to that special mission 
and field of operation. 

1 Tim. iv. 14 : ^' Neglect not the gift that 
is in thee, which was given thee by proph- 
ecy, with the laying on of the hands of the 
presbytery." 

A parallel text is found, 2 Tim. i. 6 : 
" Wherefore I put thee in remembrance 
that thou stir up the gift of God which is 
in thee by the putting on of my hands." 

Whether these two texts relate to one 
transaction, or whether there were two lay- 
ing on of hands, is unimportant. It may 
refer to one transaction, as Paul may have 
led the service in the presbytery, and hence 
may call it the laying on of the hauds of 
the presbytery in one text, and the laying 
on of his own hands in the other. But does 
it furnish any certain proof that the trans- 
action was an induction into the ministerial 
office ? We think not. It must have been 
an extraordinary transaction, limited by its 
own nature to the age of miracles. The 
laying on of hands communicated a gift 
that remained in him, that he was not to 
neglect but to stir up. This was, doubtless 
the Holy Ghost, which at that time was 
communicated by the laying on of hands. 
And as the Apostle refers to the gift that 
was in him, and not to his ministerial office, 
it is most likely that the laying on of hands 
was to communicate to him the Holy Ghost, 
and not to induct him into the Christian 
ministry. 

1 Tim. V. 22 : " Lay hands suddenly on 



no man, neither be partaker of other men'a 
sins ; keep thyself pure." 

This text does not require the laying on 
of hands as essential for any purpose, but 
only forbids it to be done suddenly. It 
only proves that there was a practice of 
laying on hands for some purpose, and that 
it should not be suddenly done ; but it 
does not prove it was to induct persons 
into the Christian ministry. The text 
itself, nor the connection in which it stands, 
does not prove that it has any allusion to 
the setting apart of persons to the ministry* 
It is clear that they were in the practice of 
laying hands on laymen, and the text is as 
likely to refer to this practice as to the 
consecration of ministers. 

Jesus Christ laid his hands on many of 
the sick whom he healed, and the apostles 
also laid their hands on the sick and healed 
them. The apostles also laid their hands 
on laymen, to communicate to them the 
Holy Ghost and special gifts. 

Acts viii. 17-19 : " Then laid they their 
hands on them, and they received the Holy 
Ghost. And when Simon saw that through 
laying on of the apostle's hands the Holy 
Ghost was given, he offered them money, 
saying. Give me also this power, that on 
whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive 
the Holy Ghost." 

Acts xix. 5-7 : " When they heard this, 
they were baptised in the name of the 
Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hia 
hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came od 
them ; and they spake with tongues and 
prophesied. And all the men were about 
twelve," 

This was not an ordination, or an induc- 
tion into the Christian ministry ; nor were 
these men ministers. Now, who can say 
that it was not with reference to some suck 
laying on of hands as the above that the 
apostle told Timothy to lay hands suddenly 
on no man. Still, if the text did refer te 
an induction into the ministerial office, it 
would not prove it indispensable. Church- 
men hold that laymen are to be admittea 
to communion by the laying on of hands. 



520 



THE MINISTRY. 



[book IV. 



called confirmation. If this be true, it is 
most reasonable to refer the text to that 
subject and understand Paul as instructing 
Timothy not to confirm laymen suddenly. 

But it will be inquired if the proof is not 
found in the word ordain, which is often 
applied to the appointment of ministers. 
The word ordain, we believe, occurs but 
five times in the New Testament, in con- 
nection with the Christian ministry, in not 
one of which does it imply the imposition 
of hands. The following are the texts : 

Mark iii. 14 : " And he ordained twelve, 
that they should be with him, and that he 
might send them forth to preach." 

The word here translated ordain, is 
epoiese, which signifies to make, constitute, 
or appoint to some office. It has no allu- 
sion to laying on of hands, nor is there the 
least proof that hands were laid upon the 
apostles. 

Acts i. 22 : " Must one be ordained to 
be witness with us of his resurrection." 

The word here rendered ordained is 
genesthai, which signifies to be, become, be 
made, created. Thus should it read, " must 
one be made a witness with us." Dr. 
Clarke says, in his notes on the text, '- This 
translation misleads every reader who can- 
not examine the original text. There is no 
term for ordained in the Greek." He adds 
that a New Testament printed in London 
in 1615, by Eobert Barker, renders it as we 
have above — " must one of them be made 
a witness with us." There is not the 
slightest allusion to the imposition of hands. 

Acts xiv. 23 : •' And when they had or- 
dained them elders in every church, and 
had prayed with fasting, they commended 
them to the Lord, on whom they believed." 

The word here translated ordained is 
cheirotonesantes. This word is derived 
from cheir, the hand, and teino, to stretch. 
The word, therefore, signifies to stretch, 
extend, or raise the hand ; to vote, elect, or 
nominate by lifting the hand. It is render- 
ed thus in Graves' Greek and English Dic- 
tionary. In the Polymicrian Greek Lexi- 
con, it is rendered as follows ; '• To vote, 



or choose by holding up the hand ; to 
choose, appoint, by vote, select, ordam, 
appoint, constitute." From this it is seen 
that the text not only asserts the fact that 
elders were constituted, but that it intimates 
the manner of doing it, which was by a 
popular vote of the churches, taken by show 
of hands. What confirms this, is the man- 
ner in which the same word is used in 2 
Cor. viii. 19. The apostle, in speaking of 
sending Titus, and of sending another per- 
son with him, adds, concerning this other 
messenger, " who was chosen [cheirotone- 
theis] of the churches to travel with us." 
Here the same word is used as in Acts xiv. 
23, it here being in the passive singular 
form. The word is here most clearly ap- 
plied to an election or appointment by the 
churches ; and as the above are the only 
texts in which this word occurs in the New 
Testament, it settles the question that ap- 
pointments were made by the lifting up of 
hands, and not by the laying on of hands i 
1 Tim. ii. 7 : " Whereunto I am ordained 
a preacher and an apostle." Here the 
word rendered ordained is etethen, which 
signifies appointed without describing the 
manner in which it was done. Titus i. 5 : 
'' For this cause left I thee in Crete, that 
thou shouldest set in order the things that 
are wanting, and ordain elders in every 
city, as I had appointed thee." Here the 
word rendered ordain is kntasteses, which 
has no reference to the imposition of hands, 
but simply signifies to settle, fix, constitute, 
appoint, ordain, establish. The manner in 
which Titus was to do this, may be inferred 
from the manner in which Paul and Barn- 
abas ordained them elders in every church, 
by lifting up the hands of the brethren, as 
shown above. 

Ordination is to be looked upon as a re- 
cognition of a man's call to preach the Gos- 
pel. It does not give him a right to preach 
the Gospel ; that right he must have, in our 
opinion, before we are authorized to ordain 
him. But it gives him our sanction, and a 
right to preach on our endorsement, and to 
avail himself of the influence of our judg- 



CHAP. II.] 



THE MINISTRY. 



521 



ment and reputation to secure him a hear- 
ing and employment among the people as a 
minister. In a word, it is a solemn recom- 
mendation. 

When a man is deposed from the minis- 
try, then, that which was given him at his 
ordination is taken away, and nothing more, 
as that only can be taken which was given. 
The recommend is withdrawn. 



SECTION III. 

Ministerial Parity. 

There is but one order in the Ministry. 

The question of ministerial parity must 
depend upon the question of orders ; for if 
there be more than one order in the minis- 
try, the simple fact of a plurality of orders 
will go far towards proving disparity. 

The following text has been supposed by 
some to teach the doctrine of different or- 
ders of ministers, and it is poper to notice 
it at this point, and show that its entire 
language is consistent with but one order of 
ministers. Eph. iv. 11 : " And he gave 
some, apostles ; and some, prophets, and 
some, evangelists, and some, pastors and 
teachers." On this text it may be remark- 
1 that it in no wise serves the purpose of 
che advocates of a plurality of orders. 

1. It does not name one of the supposed 
orders, unless it be apostles, which office has 
no existence now. 

2. If it were admitted as declarative of 
various orders of ministers, while it names 
five not generally regarded as ministerial 
orders, it must still appear deficient as a list 
of the orders, since it omits presbyters or 
elders, regarded by all denominations as an 
order or permanent office. 

3. There may still be but one order, and 
the text may speak of the different gifts 
given, and the different work assigned to 
the different individuals who compose this 
one order. So far as the apostles were con- 
cerned, it must be admitted that they had a 
special commission committted to them ; 
yet, in point of order, they may have been 



elders. Peter, who was one of the apostles, de- 
clares that he was " also an elder." (1 Peter 
v. 1.) The prophets named may also have 
been a class belonging to this same minis- 
terial order of elders. So may the evangel- 
ists, pastors, and teachers have been elders. 
The most reasonable exposition of the text 
is this : The Apostle appears to be speak- 
ing, not of permanent orders of ministers, 
but of the special gifts and agencies which 
Christ saw fit to employ to plant and estab- 
lish the apostolic churches, much of which 
passed away with the gift of miracles. To 
establish Christianity and to perfect the or- 
ganization of the Church, the following 
agencies were employed : 

1. Apostles, who had a special commis- 
sion with plenary powers. This office 
ceased, as will hereafter be shown. 

2. Prophets, who were gifted with an in- 
spiration that enabled them to foretell 
events, as did the prophets of the Old Tes- 
tament. This gift ceased from the church 
with other miraculous gifts. They were ne- 
cessary to establish Christianity as a new 
revelation, and then they ceased. 

3. Evangelists, who were probably a class 
of elders employed to travel and preach the 
G-ospel, and visit and confirm the churches, 
and organize new ones. This was necessary 
in the beginning of Christianity, and is still 
necessary in new countries, where churches 
are small, feeble, and widely scattered. 

4. Pastors, who were a class of elders, 
and who labored with and took the over- 
sight of particular congregations or churches. 
They did not travel as did the evangelists, 
but confined their labors to one local church 
where they resided. 

5. Teachers, who may have been elders, 
but more probably were not, but were ap- 
pointed to teach the heathen converts the 
first principles of Christianity. When the 
Gospel spread as it did under the labors of 
the apostles, bringing hundreds of rude 
heathens to confess Christ in a day, such 
labor must have been greatly needed. 

It is agreed by all that there are but three 
orders in the ministry — bishops, elders, and 



522 



THE MINISTRY. 



[book IV. 



deacons ; therefore, if it can be proved that 
in a Scriptural sense bishops and elders are 
the same, and that deacons were never ap- 
pointed an order of ministers, the conclu- 
sion will be certain, that there is but one or- 
der, and from this ministerial parity will 
follow as a matter of necessity. 

I. There is no proof that deacons were 
ever appointed an order of ministers. 

In our English New Testament, we believe 
the word deacon occurs in but two texts, 
which intances are not sufficient to prove 
the existence of a distinct order of ministers. 
We will give the two texts in which the 
word occurs. 

Phil. i. 1 : " Paul and Timotheus, the 
servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in 
Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the 
bishops and deacons." 

1 Tim. iii. 8-12: "Likewise must the 
deacons be grave, not doubly tongued, not 
given to much wine, not greedy of jfilthy 
lucre ; holding the mystery of the faith in a 
pure conscience. A.nd let these also first be 
proved ; then let them use the office of a 
deacon, being found blameless. Let the 
deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling 
their children and their own houses well. 
For they that have used the office of a dea- 
con well, purchase to themselves a good de- 
gree, and great boldness in the faith which 
is in Christ Jesus." 

That deacons were some kind of church 
officers, there can be no doubt, and that 
they may have preached is very likely, as 
all laymen preached, who were capable, 
when occasion called. But there is no suf- 
ficient proof in these two texts to establish 
an order of ministers. The above are the 
only texts in which the word occurs in our 
English Testaments. The reader should be 
informed, however, that the same word oc- 
curs more frequently in the Greek, being 
differently translated. In the following 
texts, which we give as specimens of the use 
of the word in the Greek, we place the 
Greek word, rendering it deacon, in brack- 
ets immediately after the English word 
translated therefrom in the common text. 



John ii. 5, 9 : " His mother saith unto 
the servants [diakonoi, deacons] , Whatso- 
ever he saith unto you, do it. 

" When the ruler of the feast had tasted 
the water that was made wine, and knew 
not whence it was : (but the servants [dia- 
konoi, deacons], which drew the water 
knew.") 

1 Cor. iii. 5 : " Who then is Paul, and 
who is Apollos, but ministers [diakonoif 
deacons] , by whom ye believed, even as the 
Lord gave to every man." 

The word in this text does not mean an 
inferior minister, as it is applied to Paul 
and Apollos. As Paul was reproving them 
for saying, " I am of Paul," it would add 
force to his reproof to render the word " ser- 
vants," as in the former texts. 

2 Cor. vi. 4 : " But in all things approv- 
ing ourselves as the ministers [diakonoi, 
deacons] of God, in much patience in aflfiic- 
tions, in necessities, in distresses." 

Here again the word cannot mean an in- 
ferior order of ministers, but render it ser- 
vant, and you have good sense. 

Rom. xvi. 1 : "I commend unto you 
Phebe our sister, which is a servant [diako- 
non, deaconess] of the church which is at 
Cenchrea." 

Was she an inferior minister authorized 
to baptize. And could she, by exercis- 
ing her office well, " purchase a good de- 
gree?" that is, become a presbyter or 
bishop ? We have read of a female Pope, 
but have never learned that her descendants 
are proud of this link which connects them 
with Peter. We have not introduced all 
the texts in which the word occurs in the 
Greek, but the above are sufficient for our 
present purpose. 

The reader has, doubtless, grown impa- 
tient by this time to hear something about 
the appointment of the seven deacons, as re- 
corded in Acts vi. 1-6. Well, this shall 
now be attended to. On this the advocates 
for an order of ministers called deacons, 
ground their principal arguments, to the 
whole of which the following reply is of- 
fered : 



CHAP. II.] 



THE MINISTRY. 



523 



1. There is no proof that the persons here! 
appointed were deacons. The term deacon 
is nowhere applied to one of them. 

2. There is no proof that they were min- 
isters in the common sense, by virtue of this 
appointment. There is no pretended proof, 
only the supposition that they preached, 
which is very doubtful. Acts vi. 8 : " And 
Stephen, full of faith and power, did great 
wonders and miracles among the people.'' 
The proof which this text furnishes that 
Stephen preached, depends upon one ques- 
tion, viz : Did any but ministers work mir- 
acles in those times? If laymen worked 
miracles, then the text contains no proof 
that Stephen was a minister. Vfe maintain 
that the working of miracles was not con- 
fined to the ministry, for St. Paul speaks of 
the gift of miracles as belonging to the 
membership of the church in common with 
various other gifts and privileges. Of this 
all must be satisfied, if they will carefully 
read 1 Cor. xii. 

But it will be said that Stephen preached 
the Gospel, and that must settle the point. 
There is no proof, we repeat, that he ever 
did preach as a minister of the Gospel. The 
simple history of his preaching is this : He 
did wonders and miracles among the peo 
pie ; then there arose up certain opposers 
and disputed with him, and were unable to 
withstand his arguments ; then they pro 
cured false witnesses and accused him before 
the Jewish council. (Actsvi. 8-15.) Then 
the high priest called on him to reply to the 
charges, and he proceeded with his defence 
(Acts vii. 1-53.) Here, then, is the extent 
of his preaching ; he disputed with some 
opposers, and when accused before the coun 
oil made one speech in self-defence, and all 
this is no more than any layman might 
have done then, or might do now. 

But the case of Philip is next relied upon 
as proof that deacons preached. Acts viii. 
5 : " Then Philip went down to the city of 
Samaria, and preached Christ unto them." 
It is a sufiicient exposition of this to say 
that there was another Philip, an apostle, 
and there is no proof that he is not the per 



son here named. Who can say that it was 
Philip, one of the seven, that went down to 
Samaria ? 

There is one other allusion to one of these 
seven men. 

Acts xxi. 8 : " And we entered into the 
house of Philip the evangelist, which was 
one of the seven." 

Here one of the seven is proved to have 
been an evangelist, which is not pretended 
to be the same as deacon. This was about 
twenty-nine years after his appointment to 
the charge of the poor fund at Jerusalem, 
and cannot prove that he was either a dea- 
con or minister by virtue of that appoint- 
ment. We have now before us all that is 
recorded concerning these seven persons. 

3. The appointment of the seven (Acts 
vi. 1-6) was the result of a financial neces- 
sity, and not of a ministerial lack. The 
very terms of the appointment, as expressed 
by the apostles, limit it to the financial 
matters in view of which the office was 
created. The apostles directed the church 
to choose out men of a certain character, 
" whom we may appoint over this business." 
The appointment is clearly limited to the 
work denoted by the expression " this busi- 
ness." What, then, is meant by " this busi- 
ness ?" The answer is plain : It was the 
complaint of " the Grecians against the He- 
brews, that their widows were neglected in 
the daily ministration." They were, then, 
appointed over the business of making an 
impartial distribution of daily bread among 
the poor widows. The terms of the ap- 
pointment, therefore, do not include any 
part of the work peculiar to the ministry. 

4. There is no proof that the appointment 
of the seven persons to the charge of the 
poor fund was the creation of a permanent 
office of any kind to be perpetuated through 
all ages in all the churches. 

The probability is that deacons were a 
class of laymen selected Irom the body, as 
officers or servants, to peform a work which 
the regular pastor, for want of time or other 
cause could not do, and which the people 
could do only through an agency. 



524 



THE MINISTRY. 



[book IV. 



II. Bishops and elders are of the same 
order. 

It should be remarked, on entering upon 
this investigation, that there is nothing in 
the meaning of the words themselves upon 
■which any conclusive argument can be hung 
upon either side. Neither word exclusively 
expresses the office or functions of the Chris- 
tian ministry. The word bishop is trans- 
lated from the Greek word "Episkopos,'' 
which signifies an overseer, a superintendent, 
or denotes one who superintends and pro- 
vides for the welfare of another. It is ap- 
plied to Christ (1 Peter ii. 25) : " For ye 
were as sheep going astray ; but now are 
returned unto the shepherd and bishop 
[EpisJcopon'] of your souls." This shows 
that the word cannot mean a " Diocesan," 
in the Protestant Episcopal sense, or an 
officer of the whole church in the Methodist 
Episcopal sense. The word, we believe, is 
applied to Christian mhiisters but four 
times in the New Testament, in three of 
which it is translated bishop, and in the 
other it is translated " overseer." These 
texts are as follow : 

Acts XX. 28 : " Take heed therefore unto 
yourselves, and to all the flock, over which 
the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers 
[Episkopous, overseers or bishops], to feed 
the church of God, which he hath purchased 
with his own blood." 

Phil. i. 1 : " Paul and Timotheus, the 
servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in 
Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with 
the bishops [Episkopois] and deacons." 

1 Tim. iii. 1 : " This is a true saying, If 
a man desireth the office of a bishop [Epis- 
Jcopes] he desireth a good work." 

Titus i. 7 : "For a bishop [EpisJcopon] 
must be blameless as the steward of God." 

We believe the above are all the cases in 
which the word is applied to Christian 
ministers or teachers, and it will be seen at a 
glance that there is nothing in the meanin 
of the word, and nothing in the connection 
in which it is found, proving or intimating 
anything like Protestant Episcopacy, or 
Methodist Episcopacy. Nothing can be 



inferred beyond the simple functions of a 
pastor of a single congregation. 

The word Presbyter is not used in the 
English Testament, but the word Presbytery 
is found once. 1 Tim. iv. 14 : " Neglect 
not the gift that is in thee, which was given 
thee by prophesy, with the laying on of the 
hands of the presbytery," [presbuterio]. 
This word literally signifies an assembly of 
old men. It is here, doubtless, used to de- 
note the officers or principal men of the 
Christian church, so called, probably, be- 
cause they were generally chosen from 
among the aged and experienced. The 
same word is used, Luke xxii. 66 : " And 
as soon as it was day, the elders [presbute- 
rionl of the people, and the chief priests 
and the scribes, came together and led him 
into their council." The same word is also 
used (Acts xxii, 5), in the expression, " and 
all the estate of the elders" [presbuterion]. 
In these texts the word probably denotes 
the Jewish Sanhedrim. 

The word from which we derive onr min- 
isterial title, presbyter or elder, is presbute- 
ros, which means one advanced in years. 
This word does not always mean an officer 
or minister, as one instance of its use will 
be sufficient to show. 1 Tim. v. 2 : " The 
elder [presbuteras] women as mothers." 
Nothing, however, can be plainer than that 
the same word is used in the New Testa- 
ment to denote an officer whose duty it was 
to teach and govern the church. 

Acts xiv. 23 : " And when they had or- 
dained them elders in every church, and had 
prayed with fasting, they commended them 
to the Lord, on whom they believed." 

This and other texts prove that elder, in 
the Christian church, denotes an officer. 
They were ordained or appointed, not to be 
old men, for time rendered them such with- 
out appointment ; but they were appointed 
to office or pastorship of the church, and 
were called elders because old men were at 
first more generally selected. The transla- 
tors have rendered the word elder, but pres- 
byter is equally proper, as they are under- 
stood by all to mean the same thing. 



CHAP.. IL] 



THE MINISTRY. 



525 



Having, as we trust, sufficiently explained 
the terms bishop and elder, we will proceed 
to the argument, and attempt to prove that 
they do not denote two orders of ministers, 
but that they denote one and the same office 
in the Christian church. Our first appeal 
is to the Scriptures. 

1. The terms bishop and elder are used 
interchangeably, and are applied to the 
same person in view of the same office or 
appointment. Actsxx. 17,28 : "And from 
Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called, the 
elders of the church," and said unto them, 
" take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to 
all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost 
hath made you overseers" —epis'kopous, over- 
seers or bishops, as the word is translated. 
Here, in the 17th verse, they are called the 
elders of the church, and in the 28th verse 
they are called overseers or bishops. 

Titus i. 6, 6, 7 : " That thou shouldst or- 
dain elders in every city, if any be blame- 
less ; for a bishop must be blameless as the 
steward of God." Here the same persons 
are called elders in the 5th verse, and bish- 
ops in the 7th verse, and that, too, with 
reference to their qualifications for an ap- 
pointment to the same office. 

1 Peter v. 1 : " The elders which are 
among you I exhort, who also am an elder 
Here the apostle Peter classes himself with 
the elders of the church. It is clear, then 
that the term elder is used to signify the 
highest grade of ministers in the Christian 
church, and and that it is used interchange- 
ably with the term bishop. 

2. The qualifications v\^hich are prescribed 
for bishops and elders are the same. 

That the reader may see at a glance the 
qualifications of the two, we place them 
together, as follows : 

Qualifications of a Bishop. — 1 Tim. 
iii. 1-7 : " A bishop then must be blame- 
less, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, 
of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt 
to teach ; not given to wine, no striker, not 
greedy of filthy lucre ; but patient, not a 
brawler, not covetous ; one that ruleth his 
own house well : not a novice. Moreover, 



he must have a good report of them which 
are without." 

QUALIFCATIONS OF AN ElDER. TituS 1. 

5-9 : " Ordain elders in every city, if any 
be blameless, the husband of one wife, not 
self-willed, not soon angry, not given to 
wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre ; 
but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good 
men, sober, just, holy, temperate ; holding 
fast the faithful word, as he hath been taught, 
that he may be able by sound doctrine both 
to exhort and convince gainsayers." 

It is here seen that there is no essential 
difference in the qualifications of bishops 
and elders. It is true that the word bishop 
is used in the 7th verse of Titus i., but this 
cannot affect the argument, as it is elders 
to be ordained in every city of which the 
apostle speaks, verse 5. 

3. The duties and official work of bishops 
and presbyters or elders are the same, which 
must prove the identity of the two. It is a 
fact worthy of serious consideration, that 
the duties of bishops in contradistinction 
from elders are nowhere pointed out in the 
New Testament. Vv^ith us it is incredible 
that they should have constituted a distinct 
order, superior to elders, and yet that we 
should have no specific work assigned them 
difi'ering from that which is most clearly 
pointed out, as belonging to elders, and 
which are specifically assigned to them. 
We challenge the production of any texts 
which assign to bishops, as a class, duties 
which elders are not required to perform. 
This one consideration is sufficient to ex- 
plode the idea that bishops are a distinct 
order superior to elders. It is not for us to 
point out the duties of bishops. We know 
of no duties assigned them as a distinct 
class ; but we will point out the duties of 
elders, and prove that they are such as pre- 
clude the possibility of there being a supe- 
rior class or order called bishops. All who 
hold that bishops are a distinct order supe- 
rior to elders, assign to them the govern- 
ment of the church, over presbyters and 
people. Now let ns see what the duties of 
elders are. 



526 



THE MINISTRY. 



[book IV. 



Two things may be affirmed of the elder- 
ship of the church — that to them belongs 
the work of teaching and governing. 

In Acts XX. 17, we are told that Paul 
called the elders of the church. In the 28th 
verse, he told them to " take heed unto all 
the flock over which the Holy Ghost had 
made them overseers, to feed the church of 
God." Two things are worthy of notice : 

(1.) These elders w^ere the overseers of 
the flock. They were made such by the 
Holy Ghost. This is the very work sup- 
posed to belong to bishops, as the name 
signifies overseer, implying the very work 
here assigned to elders. Now, under epis- 
copal government, an elder cannot be a sub- 
ordinate overseer of a flock, only by the 
appointment of a bishop. A bishop makes 
them overseers, not the Holy Ghost. Bish- 
ops, then, do now what the Holy Ghost 
used to do. 

(2.) These elders were charged withfeed- 
the church of God. Thus was the instruc- 
tion of the church committed to them. 

In this discourse, Paul addressed the el- 
ders as though they were the principal oflS- 
cers, and alone responsible. Take verses 
29 and 30, for example. 

" For I know this, that after my depart- 
ing shall grievous wolves enter in among 
you, not sparing the flock. 

" Also of your own slaves shall men arise, 
speaking perverse things, to draw away dis- 
ciples after them." 

Here is no mention of any higher officers, 
no advice or charge to be subject to their 
chief ministers to whom the charge and gov- 
ernment is committed over them. Had 
there been diocesan or general bishops to 
govern those presbyters, the apostle could 
not have failed to make some allusion to 
the fact in delivering his last charge. There 
is no allusion to any successor to take his 
place ; he most clearly left the elders in 
possession of an undisputed and unlimited 
jurisdiction, so far as any superior order of 
ministers is concerned. 

Peter's charge to the elders is equally 
clear and to the point, showing that to eld- 



ers belong the work of government and in- 
struction. 

1 Peter v. 1, 2, 3, 4 : "The elders which 
are among you I exhort, who am also an 
elder, and a witness of the sufferings of 
Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that 
shall be revealed. 

"Feed the flock of God which is among 
you, taking the oversight thereof, not by 
constraint, but willingly ; not for filthy lu- 
cre, but of a ready mind ; 

"Neither as being lords over God's herit- 
age, but being ensamples to the flock. 

"And when the chief Shepherd shall ap- 
pear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that 
fadeth not away." 

Here a.gain the duties of elders are point- 
ed out, too plain to be misunderstood. They 
embrace the very work that is supposed to 
belong to bishops — that of governing as 
well as teaching. The apostle refers them 
to the appearing of the chief Shepherd, but 
makes no allusion to their Diocesans, or 
Bishops to whom they were accountable. 
How can this omission be accounted for if 
bishops, as contradistinguished from elders, 
have the government of all, holding the en- 
tire pastorate of the church in their hands, 
so that no elder can have the oversight of a 
flock without the bishop's appointment ? 
This is modern episcopacy, but the apostle 
appears to have contemplated no such thing. 

It will be seen, from these Scriptures, that 
there is no work belonging to a bishop 
which elders are not charged to perform, 
unless it be ordination. We will not, at 
this point, enter upon the question of ordi- 
nation, further than to remark that if it be- 
longs to the department of government, it 
is the right of elders to ordain, for it has 
been shown that the government of the 
church was committed to them. But proof 
is needed on the other side. We deny that 
there are any texts of Scripture which confer 
the right of ordination upon bishops by name 
as contradistinguished from elders. Let 
proof on this point be adduced, if there is any. 

We trust the above considerations will 
be regarded as sufficient to prove that bish- 



CHAP. II.] 



THE MINISTRY. 



627 



ops and presbyters are one in office and au- 
thority. The argument thus far rests upon 
three points. 

1. The names are used interchangeably. 

2. Their qualifications are the same. 

3. Their work is the same. 

These positions, thus sustained, must set- 
tle the question in the mind of the candid 
reader. 

To the above is added the following from 
the best Ecclesiastical authorities in con- 
firmation of the Scriptural argument. 

"A bishop, during the first and second 
century was a person who had charge of 
one Christian assembly, which at that time 
was, generally speaking, small enough to be 
contained in a private house. In this as- 
sembly he acted, not so much with the au- 
thority of a master, as with the zeal and 
diligence of a faithful servant." — [Mosheim's 
History, Yol. i., p. 39. 

Other extracts might be given from this 
author, but a few decisive passages is all 
that can be given from each author quoted 
The following are a few extracts from Lord 
King's account of the primitive church, 
The quotations are made from the Metho- 
dist Book Eoom edition, and refer to the 
page. 

"Having in the former chapter shown 
that there was but one bishop to a church, 
so we shall in this evidence that there was 
but one church to a bishop." 30. 

"A bishop having but one parish under 
his jurisdiction, could extend his government 
no further than one single congregation.' 
32. 

"The bishop had but one altar or com- 
munion table in his whole diocese, at which 
his whole flock received the sacrament from 
him. 'There is but one altar,' says Ignati 
us, 'as there is but one bishop.' At this 
altar the bishop administered the sacrament 
to his whole flock at one time." 33. 

From the above it must appear that a 
primitive bishop was no more than a pastor 
of a single congregation. We will intro- 
duce Mr. Wesley's opinion at this point. 
In his Journal for January 20, 1736, he 



declares his belief in the correctness of Lord 
King's book, from which we have quoted 
above, and affirms, upon its authority, "that 
bishops and presbyters are essentially of one 
order." 

Mr. Watson, in his Dictionary, article 
Episcopalians, quotes Archbishop Cranmer, 
as follows : 

"The bishops and priests were at one 
time, and were not two things, but both one 
office in the beginning of Christ's reli- 
gion." 

The term priest is used in the above to 
signify elder or presbyter. This is what is 
meant by priest in the language of that 
church. Mr. Watson in his Dictionary, 
article Presbyterians, produces a labored 
argument to prove the identity of bishops 
and elders, in which he quotes the same 
Scriptures which have been quoted in the 
preceding section. We will only give an 
extract or two. Of the Episcopal distinc- 
tion between bishops and presbyters, Mr. 
Watson says : 

"The whole of the writers of antiquity 
may be urged in support of it [the distinc- 
tion,] if that could be done ; and, after all, 
every private Christian would be entitled to 
judge for himself and be directed by his own 
judgment, unless it be maintained that where 
Scripture has affirmed the existence of 
equality, this is to be counteracted and set 
at nought by the testimonies and assertions 
of a set of writers, who, although honored 
with the name of fathers, are very far from 
being infallible, and who have, in fact, often 
delivered sentiments which even they who 
upon a particular emergency cling to them, 
must confess to be directly at variance with 
all that is sound in reason, or venerable and 
sublime in religion. It also follows from 
the scriptural identity of bishops and pres- 
byters, that no church in which this identi- 
ty is preserved can on that account be con- 
sidered as having departed from the aposto- 
lic model." — [Dictionary, article Presbyteri- 
ans. 

"The argument drawn from the promis;- 
cuous use of the terms [bishop and presby- 



528 



THE MINISTRY. 



[book IV. 



ter] in the New Testament, to prove that 
the same order of ministers is expressed by 
them, appears incontrovertible."— [Watson's 
Institutes. Part 4, chap. 1. Page 419, in 
one volume. 

We will now make one extract from Dr. 
Chapman, a distinguished high church writ- 
er of our own country. He says : 

"One circumstance, however, I have as 
yet forborne to explain, to which I most 
particularly request your attention. It is a 
favorite argument with the opponents of 
Episcopacy, and I believe the more a favor- 
ite from its being extremely plausible, and 
calculated to satisfy a superficial inquirer, 
that bishops have no more authority in the 
church than presbyters or elders, because 
these titles are indiscriminately applied to 
the same office, in the inspired volume. The 
fact we admit. We agree that, through 
the Acts and epistles, bishops and presby- 
ters are frequently spoken of as holding the 
same rank in the ministry." — [Chapman's 
Sermons, page 77. 

We here have a full admission of the fact 
for which we contend ; the great truth may 
therefore be regarded as settled, that in the 
language of Scripture, bishop and presbyter 
mean the same thing. 

But Dr. Chapman makes this admission 
for the sake of explaining it away, which 
he attempts, with what success our readers 
shall judge. His whole defence against this 
argument rests just here. He says that 
bishops are the successors of the apostles, 
that the office of bishop is a continuation of 
apostolic office, that while the first apostle 
lived presbyters were called bishops ; but 
after the death of the twelve, their succes- 
sors, out of respect to their names, ceased 
to be called apostles, but took the name of 
bishop, which per consequence ceased to be 
applied to presbyters, so that the apostolic 
office continued in fact, as superior to pres- 
byters, under the name of bishop. The ar- 
gument is that bishops are apostles, the 
apostolic office being continued in them, 
and the only change being in the name, 
they having dropped the title of apostle | 



and taken to themselves the title of bish- 
op, by which presbyters were originally 
known. 

A few words in reply to this view of 
the subject will close this section. 

1. One grand defect in this method of 
evading the argument drawn from the pro- 
miscuous use of the terms bishop and elder, 
is, it is not sustained by any reliable proof. 
Not a single text is quoted in its support, 
nor is it pretended that there are any texts 
to be quoted on that side of the question. 
The only reliance is upon two slight re- 
marks quoted from two of the so called fath- 
ers. The principal quotation is from Theo- 
doret, who must have written after the com- 
mencement of the fifth century. Such are 
the fables on which such important matters 
are made to depend. 

2. There is too much Scriptural light on 
the subject, and too much Scriptural argu- 
ment against this fancy painting, to admit 
of its being received as the work of Truth's 
pencil. Where is the proof that the apos- 
tles had any successors. So far as the 
apostles possessed functions in common with 
the bresbyters, those functions have been 
preserved in the order of presbyters ; but 
so far as they possessed extraordinary func- 
tions, which distinguished them from other 
ministers, they have no successors. There 
is no proof that they left successors, beyond 
what is found in the order of presbyters. 
They nowhere, not even in a single text, 
speak of successors, though they spoke and 
wrote of their departure on occasions and 
under circumstances which could not have 
failed to call forth allusions to their suc- 
cessors, if any such they were to leave be- 
hind them. Take Paul's farewell address 
to the elders of the church at Ephesus. 
Hear him deliver his last charge to them, 
as recorded in the 20th chapter of Acts. 

' And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus 
and called the ciders of the church, and 
said unto them, take heed therefore unto 
yourselves, and to all the flock, over which 
the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers. 

' For I know this, that after my depart- 



CHAP. II.] 



THE MINISTRY. 



ing, shall grievous wolves enter in among 
you, not sparing the flock. 

" Also of your own selves shall men 
arise, speaking perverse things, to draw 
away disciples after them." 

There is here no allusion to any suc- 
cessors, and no intimation that there was 
or was to be any superior ministers to ex- 
ercise a jurisdiction over them. 

The apostle Peter refers to his departure 
in a most touching manner, and yet makes 
no allusion to successors. 

2 Peter i. 13, 14, 15 : " Tea, I think it 
meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to 
stir you up, by putting you in remem- 
brance ; 

" Knowing that shortly I must put off 
this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus 
Christ hath showed me. 

" Moreover I will endeavor that ye may 
be able after my decease to have these 
things always in remembrance." 

But we maintain from the very nature 
and design of the apostolic office that they 
could have no successors. As this is a 
vital point in the argument, we will pre- 
sent an outline of the proof. 

1. The name implies that they could 
have no successors. The Greek word is 
apostolos, which signifies a person sent or 
delegated. The twelve were personally 
called and sent by Jesus Christ, Now, 
though there might be many messengers, 
messengers of churches and messengers of 
individuals, yet in the high sense of bein; 
the sent of Jesus Christ, the dignity of 
apostles must be limited to the thirteen 
including Paul. To be an apostle in this 
high sense, it was necessary that they should 
be personally called and sent by Jesus 
Christ. So Paul appears to have under 
stood the case. 

Gal. i. 1 : " Paul an apostle (not of men, 
neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and 
God the Father, who raised him from the 
dead.") 

Bishops in the Episcopal sense are not 
apostles — they are not the sent ; but if to 
them belongs the exclusive right of calling 
34 



and sending out ministers, they are the 
senders and not the sent. 

2. The apostles were sent as witnesses of 
the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. 
This was what distinguished their office and 
work from the common ministry ; hence 
the office must be limited to those who had 
seen Jesus Christ. The apostles possessed 
the ordinary functions of the ministry, but 
these did not distinguish them from, or 
render them superior to presbyters, but 
they had a higher mission as the personal 
witnesses to the death and resm-rection of 
Christ, sent by him to organize his church. 

1 Peter v. 1 : *' The elders that are 
among you I exhort^ who also am an elder, 
and a witness of the sufferings of Christ," 

Here the apostle takes rank with elders 
as a mere preacher or pastor, but distin- 
guishes himself as an apostle, as "a witness 
of the sufferings of Christ.", 

Paul clearly understood that it was nec- 
essary to have seen Christ to be an apos- 
tle. 

1 Cor. ix. 1 : " Am I not an apostle ? 
am I not free? have I not seen Jesus 
Christ our Lord ?" 

It appears that the apostle considered 
the fact that he had seen Christ, as essen- 
tial to his claim to be an apostle. He refers 
to the same fact in chapter xv. 8-10 : " And 
last of all he was seen of me also, as of one 
born out of due time. For I am the last of the 
apostles, that am not meet to be called an apos- 
tle, because I persecuted the church of God." 

If, then, an apostle was one personally 
sent by Jesus Christ, and if he was sent to 
witness to the death and resurrection of 
Christ, rendering it necessary that he should 
have seen him after his resurrection to ren- 
der him a competent witness, the apostles 
could not have left any successors behind 
them, and of course Mr. Chapman's whole 
theory falls to the ground. 

It has now been proved that there is but 
one order in the ministry, and from this it 
must follow that all ministers are equal. 



530 



THE MINISTRY. 



[BOOK. ly. 



SECTION I"V. 

Ministerial Parity — Further Direct Evi- 
idence — Br. Bangs Reviewed, 

We do not mean that all ministers have 
the same right to exercise all their func- 
tions at the same time, in the same place, 
when we say that all ministers are equal. 
"We mean that all are equal in essential 
ministerial power, and equal in the right to 
exercise that power in the same relations 
and circumstances. All ministers have 
the same right to enter into the pastoral 
relation, and all ministers sustaining this 
relation to a particular flock, must of ne- 
cessity have the same power and right to 
discharge the full functions of their minis- 
try within their respective jurisdictions. 
Our idea of ministerial equality forbids one 
minister to monopolize the pastorship of 
the people beyond his personal ministra- 
tions, or to exercise a governmental con- 
trol over other ministers, beyond what they 
exercise over him. We will now give an 
outline of the argument on this point. 

1. The whole that has been said in proof 
that there is but one order of ministers, 
comes to a focus just at this point. It has 
been shown that deacons are not an inferior 
-order of ministers, so that their is no order 
inferior to elders. 

It has also been shown that bishops and 
■elders are the same order, and that the 
apostles had no successors ; so that there 
can be no order superior to elders. 

If, then, there are no ministers inferior to 
elders, and none superior, the argumeut is 
conclusive that there is but one order of 
ministers, and that all ministers must be 
equal. Indeed there can be no dispute, as 
the question is now presented. It is not 
contended that there is or can be any rad- 
ical inequality among elders ; it is admitted 
that all elders are equal in themselves. 
Now as all elders are equal, and as all min- 
isters are elders, as has been proved, it 
follows that all ministers are equal. 

2. The equality of ministers must follow 



from the absence of any specific grant of 
power to any specific class. To justify any 
person, or class of persons, in assuming and 
exercising authority 07er others, there must 
be an explicit warrant or grant of such 
power. But there is no such grant of pow- 
er to be found in the New Testament, con- 
ferring upon any class of elders extra au- 
thority for the government of other elders. 
Let the text be produced, if there is one, 
which contains such gi'ant of power. 

Dr. Bangs, in his " Original Church," 
has undertaken to make out this' case. His 
argument is that Timothy and Titus were 
the successors of the apostles, possessing 
their right of jurisdiction and government 
of the church. We will give a few extracts. 
He says of the apostles : 

" So far as the government of the church 
was concerned, and a supreme jurisdiction 
was needful for its unity and prosperity, 
they unquestionably had successors ; it was, 
however, a succession of jurisdictional pow- 
ers, and not of the exclusive powers of or- 
dination. 

" If it be asked who the immediate suc- 
cessors of the apostles were, I answer, that 
among others, Timothy and Titus, and 
probably Bpaphroditus must be numbered." 
— [Orig. Church, p. 186. 

" It is equally clear, I think, from the 
same testimony, that those denominated 
bishops and presbyters in the apostolic 
days, and with whom the power of ordina- 
tion was originally vested, were not the 
successors of the apostles." — [Page 137. .>j 

" That these same persons (Timothy and 
Titus) were the successors of the apostles 
is equally evident." 

At this point. Dr. Bangs introduces an 
argument drawn from 2 Tim. 4, 5, 6, after 
which he remarks as follows : 

" These all indicate that the apostle de- 
signed these two eminent evangelists to 
succeed him in the government of the 
church, as general superintendents. Here 
was a proper itinerating episcopacy, clothed 
with ample powers to superintend the af- 
fairs of the church, to set things in order, 



CHAP. 11.] 



THE MINISTRY. 



531 



and to ordain elders in every city, not re- 
sembling the restricted jurisdiction of 
either the Congressional or Presbyterian 
pastors, nor yet that of the episcopacy of 
the Protestant Episcopal church. — [Page 
140, 141. 

If we understand the Doctor, his argu- 
ment embraces the following points. 

(1.) The apostles appointed successors 
clothed with general jurisdictional power 
to superintend and govern the whole church, 
as a unit, or as one organization. 

(2.) These successors of the apostles 
were not presbyters, but were superior to 
them. 

(3.) The body of presbyters at the same 
time possessed the power of ordination. 
To all this it may be replied, 

(1.) It involves the doctrine of succession, 
as essential to the rightful government of the 
church. The difference between his succes- 
sion and that of high church men is, theirs 
includes the right of ordination. His ex- 
cludes this, and only embraces the right of 
jurisdiction and government. The Doctor 
disclaims the necessity of this succession as 
essential to the existence of a church, but 
we insist that it follows from his positions 
that without it there can be no scripturally 
organized and governed church. The se- 
cret of his strange positions is this : Had 
lie incMdedthe power of ordination, it would 
have killed Methodist Episcopacy, as it can 
claim no more than Presbyterian ordination 
for its origin ; and without this imaginary 
jurisdiction grounded upon apostolic au- 
thority, the jurisdiction and power of Meth- 
odist Bishops could not be justified. Now, 
in his zeal to justify Methodist Episcopacy, 
. he has invented this succession of jurisdic- 
tion and right of government, which, if 
true, must unchurch the world, or drive us 
back into the bosom of Popery to find the 
line of this succession of jurisdiction. Look 
at the points of his arguments. He affirms 
that " a supreme jurisdiction was needful 
for the unity and prosperity of the church." 
To meet this necessity he affirms, and labors 
to prove from express declarations of Scrip- 



ture, that Paul appointed Timothy, Titus, 
and others his successors in the government 
of the church, " with a succession of juris- 
dictional power," with a charge to commit 
the same to others. [See Original Church, 
page 136-142.] Now, if all this be true, 
the observance of this succession is just as 
binding as anything else commanded, taught, 

d established by the Apostles, and to say 
that a church can exist without this order 
of things, is to say that a church can exist 
without observing the teachings of the Scrip- 
tures in their organization and government. 
It cannot be got over, as is attempted, by 
saying that there is no specific form of gov- 
ernment laid down in the Scriptures, for 
Dr. Bangs professes to prove that we have 
a specific form thus far, that a general juris- 
diction is necessary, and that it was provi- 
ded for by the Apostles, by the actual es- 
tablishment of a succession of jurisdiction. 
Now if this be so, the church must be bound 
by it, just as strongly as by anything else 
the Apostles taught. It follows then, most 
clearly, from Dr. Bangs' position, that a 
succession from St. Paul is necessary, in the 
form of a " supreme jurisdiction" over the 
church, from which the following conse- 
quences must follow : 

First, there can be but one properly or- 
ganized church, rightfully governed, as the 
jurisdiction is one undivided supreme juris- 
diction, which was established by the Apos- 
tles. 

Secondly, if the M. E. Church in her 
bishops, has this " supreme jurisdiction" 
for the " unity and prosperity" of the 
church, it must follow that they only are 
under apostolic government, as Dr. Bangs 
contends that the " succession of jurisdic- 
tion" which the Apostles established is not 
a local jurisdiction, but a general indivisible 
jurisdiction. 

Thirdly, if the M. E. Church has not this 
" succession of jurisdiction," they cannot be 
under apostolical government. Now as 
Dr. Bangs contends that the " succession of 
jurisdiction" established by the Apostles, 
was not in the hands of the presbyters, but 



532 



THE MINISTRY. 



[book IV. 



in the hands of others superior to them, and 
as Mr. Wesley was only a presbyter, they 
cannot have this needful succession of su- 
preme jurisdiction. 

(2.) Dr. Bangs' theory is self-contradic- 
tory. The idea of a supreme jurisdiction 
for the government of the church, with pow- 
er to ordain elders, in every church, is not 
consistent with the general right of ordina- 
tion in the hands of presbyters. To defend 
the jurisdiction and powers of Methodist 
Episcopacy, he insists that a general su- 
preme jurisdiction was established by suc- 
cession, not in the hands of presbyters, but 
above them ; and then to defend Methodist 
ordination, which is derived only from pres- 
byters, he contends that with presbyters was 
deposited the right of ordination. Now 
who does not see that the supreme jurisdic- 
tion of the successors of the Apostles, with 
the power to ordain everywhere, is inconsis- 
tent with the general right of presbyters to 
ordain ? The power to ordain could not be 
possessed and exercised by two such distinct 
classes, without leading to disorder and con- 
fusion. Thus does the Doctor's theory over- 
throw itself. 

(3.) It is not true that the directions 
given to Timothy and Titus imply a more 
extended jurisdiction than is recognized by 
Congregationalism, as Dr. Bangs affirms. 
Suppose a Congregational minister should 
go out from New England, and preach, and 
organize churches in a heathen country ; 
should those churches elect them pastors of 
their own number, such minister, at their 
request, would lay his hands on every one 
of them. Now this is all that can be proved 
concerning Timothy and Titus. Dr. Bangs 
must have been ignorant of Congregational- 
ism, or he would never have written as he 
did. 

(4.) It cannot be proved that even Paul 
exercised an authoritative jurisdiction over 
Timothy and Titus, or even over the pres- 
byters of the church ; much less can it be 
j)roved that he communicated any such 
general supreme jurisdiction to Timothy 
and Titus for the government of presby- 



ters. The whole implies necessarily, by 
the force of the terms used, nothing more 
than the advice of the older to the youn- 
ger. 

(5.) If it be admitted that Paul had su- 
preme jurisdiction, as he is admitted to have 
been inspired, it can prove nothing concern- 
ing those who are not inspired. It cannot 
even prove that it can be right for unin- 
spired men to possess such jurisdiction. He 
must have received and possessed that ju- 
risdiction, if he had it, by virtue of his 
inspiration and plenary commission direct 
from Christ. These were not transfer- 
able, and therefore he could not have 
appointed successors to exercise them. Dr. 
Bangs lays much stress on the fact that 
Timothy and Titus were assistants of Paul, 
but this is against his argument — for if they 
were only assistants, acting in the name and 
by the authority of Paul, as his agents or 
assistants, their commissions must have died 
when the Apostle died. They could not 
have continued the v/ork of assistants of 
Paul after he was dead. 

(6.) The whole argument rests upon what 
Paul did, whereas he was but the thirteenth 
apostle. There is not the least pretended 
proof that any of the other twelve Apos- 
tles appointed successors, and what Paul is 
said to have done, it is clear he did without 
communing with or consulting the other 
Apostles. How absurd, then, is it to hang 
a succession of supreme jurisdiction upon 
the slight remarks made by Paul to Timo- 
thy and Titus, on his individual responsi- 
bility ? Suppose Peter to have appointed 
successors, and James, and John, and each 
of the twelve, how could they have recon- 
ciled their respective claims to a " supreme 
jurisdiction?" The thing is impossible. 
The Apostles might settle their claims under 
the injfluence of inspiration ; but their suc- 
cessors were not inspired, and hence thir- 
teen different branches of the succession of 
supreme jurisdiction, emanating from thir- 
teen different persons without inspiration to 
guide and settle their claims, would be likely 
to cross each other's path and make a little 



CHAP. II.] 



THE MINISTRY. 



533 



confusion and strife. The very idea is im- 
possible. 

We trust we have now sufficiently re- 
moved Dr. Bangs' theory of apostolical 
succession, and will fall back upon our own 
argument, that all ministers are equal be- 
cause there is no grant of power to one class- 
of ministers for the government of another 
class. The reader will remember that this 
was the point we were upon, and as Dr. 
Bangs had undertaken to prove such grant 
made by Paul to Timothy and others, to be 
handed down to successors, we were bound 
to meet his argument. To claim power, 
there must be a specific grant produced, 
and we trust we have shown that Dr. Bangs 
has failed to produce such gTant, and the 
conclusion is that — there being no grant of 
power to one class of ministers over another 
class — all ministers must be equal. 

3. We will close the argument by a brief 
appeal directly to the Scriptures : 

Matt. XX. 25 : " But Jesus called them 
unto him and said. Ye know that the prin- 
ces of the Gentiles exercise dominion over 
them, and they that are great exercise au 
thority upon them. 

26. " But it shall not be so among you ; 
but whosoever will be great among you, let 
him be your minister ; 

27. " And whosoever will be chief among- 
^ you, let him be your servant : 

28. " Even as the Son of Man came not 
to be ministered unto, but to minister, and 
to give his life a ransom for many." 

There are two words in this text which 
require explanation to be understood by the 
plain reader. These words are minister and 
servant. The Greek word which is render- 
ed minister is diaJconos, which is rendered 
deacon or servant, but which means a reli- 
gious or ecclesiastical servant. The word 
which is rendered servant is doulos, and 
means servant or slave. The meaning of 
Christ appears to be this : whosoever will 
be great among you, let him be your lowest 
ecclesiastical or religious servant Idialconos] ; 
and whosoever will be chief among you, 
let him be your lowest secular servant 



[doulos.] — [See Dr. A. Clarke's notes on 
the text. 

The design of the text was to teach them 
the doctrine of equality and a common 
brotherhood among them as Christian min- 
isters. This text was designed to repress 
ill feeling, growing out of a desire on the 
part of some to be greater than others, and 
it settles the question forever, so far as words 
can settle it, that one minister has no right 
to exercise authority over another. "Among 
you it shall not be so ;" — this is, none of 
you shall " exercise authority" over others. 
If the text means anything, it means this, 
and if it had been framed on purpose to 
prove the absolute equality of ministers it 
could not have been more direct, full, and 
conclusive. 



SECTION V. 

The Assumption of Appostolical Succession 
Exposed. 

The high church view of the subject is, 
that the bishops of the English Church, and 
the Protestant Episcopal Church, of the 
United States, are successors of the apos- 
tles, and have derived their ofiicefrom them, 
by an unbroken chain of successive ordina- 
tions, and that without such succession there 
can be no valid ordinations, no valid minis- 
try, no church, and no sacraments. 

The above view has been already refuted, 
beyond the power of contradiction ; tlie 
apostles had no successors, and could have 
none from the nature of their peculiar office. 
It was also shown that there is but one or- 
der of ministers, as the ministry was origi- 
nally instituted, deacons not being an order 
of ministers, and bishops and presbyters be- 
ing identical. These points being sustained, 
the claim set up for modern bishops as suc- 
cessors of the apostles, with an office supe- 
rior to, and a jurisdiction over all presby- 
ters, must fall to the ground. This is suf- 
ficient of itself to settle the question, that 
all such high church claims are without 
foundation. Yet, as so much stress is laid 



534 



THE MINISTRY. 



[book IV. 



upon this fabulous succession, it is, perhaps 
proper to devote a distinct section to its 
consideration. It is so high in its claims, 
and so all-sweeping in its consequences, if 
true, that it ought to be looked full in the 
face, and its claims should be met and re- 
futed. If this doctrine be true, but a mere 
fraction of Protestant Christians and minis- 
ters are witliiu the pale of the church of 
Christ, whose only hope must be in the un- 
covenanted mercies of God. However, the 
assumptions appear more alarming in the 
distance than they do on close examination, 
as we trust will soon be made to appear. 

1. We insist that there is no evidence 
that any such succession is necessary. No 
jDroof can be produced that a valid ministry 
cannot be elected by laymen, from among 
themselves, and be by them set apart to the 
w^ork. Suppose an intelligent and devoted 
religious community without a regularly or- 
dained ministry, and should they elect one 
of their number to be their pastor, and pro- 
ceed in an appropriate and orderly manner 
to set him apart to the work of the ministry, 
by what texts of Scripture, or by what ar- 
guments can it be proved that his ministra- 
tions would not be valid ? We know of no 
such Scriptures or argument. There is but 
one text, so far as we know, which is ever 
relied upon, in proof of the establishment 
of a succession by the apostles. 2 Tim. ii. 
2 : " The thing thou hast heard of me among 
many witnesses, the same commit thou to 
faithful men, who shall be able to teach oth- 
ers also." The fact that this text is quoted 
by such men as Dr. Chapman, to prove the 
succession, is of itself proof that the Scrip- 
tures contain no valid evidence on the point. 
The text has no reference to the subject of 
the wsuccession contended for, but speaks of 
a succession of instruction. The matter is 
this : Timothy had learned the truth of 
Paul, and he enjoined on him to teach these 
same truths to faithful men, who should be 
able, in their turn, to teach the same to 
others. Instruction must be thus commu- 
nicated, but what has that to do with a sac- 
cession of ordinations? Just nothing at 



all. These things — that is, the doctrines 
of the Gospel — can be transmittd from one 
to another by instruction, without any such 
thing as a succession of ordination by im- 
position of hands, extending a chain of phy- 
sical contracts from the apostle Paul down 
to the end of time. It is seen, therefore, 
that the text proves nothing concerning 
the imaginary succession, and we may con- 
clude that there is no proof of the necessity 
of any such thing. 

2. We urge, in opposition to this assump- 
tion of an apostolical succession, that there 
is no proof that it exists. Here we dispute 
an alleged fact which is vital to the argu- 
ment of our opponents, and which must be 
proved by undoubted evidence. Suppose 
the succession to be admitted as necessary, 
notwithstarftliug what has been said above ; 
it must then be proved that such succession 
exists, by evidence as clear as we would de- 
sire to have of our right to the covenanted 
mercies of God. If they fail in the proof 
on this point, all is lost. Where, then, is 
the proof that any such succession exists ? 
There is none, absolutely none that can be 
relied upon. Mr. Stevens, in his work al- 
ready referred to, has presented a summary 
review of the evidences, if evidences there 
be any, that a succession from the apostles 
has been preserved, and now has any real 
existence. Mr. Stevens' argument is mainly , 
taken from an able argument in the Edin- 
burgh Eeview, 1843. As we consider it 
conclusive on the point, we save the labor 
of constructing an argument, by giving this 
as follows : 

*' Whether we consider the palpable ab- 
surdity of this doctrine, its utter destitution 
of historical evidence, or the outrage it im- 
plies on all Christian charity, it is equally 
revolting. The arguments against it are 
infinite ; the evidence for it absolutely no- 
thing. It rests not upon one doubtful as- 
sumption, but upon fifty. First, the very 
basis on which it rests — the claim of episco- 
pacy itself to be considered undoubtedly 
and exclusively of apostolical origiii — has 
been most fiercely disputed by men of equal 



CHAP. II.] 



THE MINISTRY. 



535 



erudition and acnteness, and, so far as can 
be judged, of equal integrity and piety." 

•* Again, who can certify that this gift 
has been incorruptibJy transmitted through 
the impurities, heresies, and ignorance of 
the dark ages ? Is there nothing that can 
invalidate orders ? The chances are infi- 
nite that there have been flaws somewhere 
or other in the long chain of succession ; 
and, as no one knows where the fatal breach 
may have been, it is sufficient to spread uni- 
versal panic through the whole church. 
What bishop can be sure that he and his 
predecessors in the same line have always 
been consecrated ? or what presbyter that 
he was ordained by a bishop who had a 
right to ordain ?" " But the difficulties do 
not end here. It is asked how a man, who 
is no true Christian, can be a true Christian 
minister ? how he, who is not even a disciple 
of Christ, can be a genuine successor of 
the apostles." 

" Since the first century, no less, in all 
probability, than a hundred thousand per- 
sons have exercised the functions of bishops. 
That many of these have not been bishops 
by apostolic succession, is quite certain. 
Hooker admits that deviations from the 
general rule have been frequent ; and with 
a boldness worthy of his high and states- 
man-like intellect, pronounces them to have 
been often justifiable." 

Archbishop Whately declares, " If a man 
consider it as highly probable that the par- 
ticular minister at whose hands he receives 
the sacred ordinances is really apostolically 
decended, this is the very utmost point to 
which he can, with any semblance of reasoD, 
attain ; and the more he reflect-s and inquires, 
the more cause for hesitation he will find. 
There is not a minister in Christendom who 
is able to trace up, with any approach to 
certainty, his own spiritual pedigree." "If 
a bishop has not been duly consecrated . . . 
his ordinations are null ; and so are the min- 
istrations of those ordained by him . . . and 
so on without end. The poisonous taint of 
informality, if it once creep in undetected, 
will spread the infection of nullity to an in- 



definite extent. And who can pronounce 
that during the . . . dark ages, no such taint 
was ever introduced ? Irregularities could 
not have been wholly excluded without a 
perpetual miracle. Amidst the numerous 
corruptions of doctrine and of practice, and 
gross superstitions, that crept in ... we 
find descriptions not only of the profound 
ignorance and profligacy of many of the 
clergy, but of the grossest irregularities in 
respect of discipline and form. "We read of 
bishops consecrated when mere children — of 
men officiating who barely knew their let- 
ters — of prelates expelled, and others put in 
their place, by violence — of illiterate and 
profligate laymen, and habitual drunkards, 
admitted to holy orders ; — and, in short, of 
the prevalence of every kind of disorder and 
indecency. It is inconceivable that any 
one, even moderately acquainted with histo- 
ry, can feel . . . and approach to certainty, 
that amidst all this confusion and corrup- 
tion, every requisite form was, in every in- 
stance, strictly adhered to ; and that no one 
not duly consecrated or ordained was ad- 
mitted to sacred offices." 

Eusebius, the earliest uninspired historian 
of the church, though he sets out with the 
design of tracing the succession, assures us 
that it is matter of much doubt, and that he 
had but slight authorities to depend on re- 
specting even the definite fields of the apos- 
tles, if they had any. He assures us he had 
to rely on mere report ; and respecting their 
successors, he says : " Who they were . . . 
that, imitating these apostles (meaning Pe- 
ter and Paul) , were by them thought wor- 
thy to govern the churches which they 
planted, is no easy thing to tell, excepting 
such as may be collected from St. Paul's 
own words." — [Ecc. Hist., lib. iii. ch. iv. 

Bishop Stillingfleet remarks : ''If the 
successors of the apostles, by the confession 
of Eusebius, are not certainly to be discov- 
ered, then what becomes of that unquestion- 
able line of succession of the bishops of sev- 
eral churches, and the large diagrams made 
of the apostolical churches, with every one's 
name set down in his order, as if the writer 



536 



THE MINISTEY. 



[book IV. 



had been Clarencieux to the apostles them- 
selves ? Are all the great outcries of apos- 
tolical tradition, of personal succession, of 
unquestionable records, resolved at last into 
the Scripture itself, by him from wliom all 
these long pedigrees are fetched ? Then let 
succession know its place, and learn to veil 
bonnet to the Scriptures ; and, withal, let 
men take heed of oTerreachiug themselves, 
when they would bring down so large a 
catalogue of single bishops, from the first 
and purest times of the church, for it will 
be hard for others to believe them when 
Eusebius professeth it so hard to find them." 

Calamy, to show what little dependerce 
can be placed on these tables, gives a brief 
view, from the representations of ancient 
writers, of the " strange confusion" of the 
first part of the tables of the three most 
celebrated churches of Alexandria, Antioch 
and Eome : ''The church of Alexandria, has 
been generally represented as founded by 
St. Mark, and yet Eusebius speaks of it but 
as an uncertain report. 'They say it was 
so ;' but he does not tell us who said so, nor 
upon what grounds. However, upon this 
slender authority of 'they say so,' many 
others after him have ventured to affirm it 
as an indisputable fact, that St. Mark was 
actually the founder of this church. How- 
ever, even in this there is no perfect agree- 
ment. Some contend that he was there 
with St. Peter, others, that he was there 
alone, being sent by St. Peter ; others that 
he was there only once ; others, that he re- 
turned again after his first visit. As to the 
time of his arrival, the period of his minis 
try, and the year in which this church was 
first founded, all its records are totally si- 
lent ; and the famous Clement, from whom 
we might expect some information, throws 
not a single ray of light upon this subject. 

"But even supposing St. Mark, under all 
these disadvantages, to have been seated in 
this church on his throne of polished ivory, 
as the fabulous legends report, and that he 
wrote his Gospel in it, the difficulties will 
increase when we proceed to his successors. 
His immediate follower on 'the throne of 



ivory' has several names given to him ; and 
as to those who come after, the representa- 
tions and accounts are too various and con- 
flicting to be credited as records of a fact. 

"The line of succession which proceeds 
from Antioch is involved in equal, if not 
still greater, difficulties than that of Alex- 
andria. Eusebius, St. Chrysostom, St. Je- 
rome, Pope Leo, Innocent, Gelasius, and 
Gregory the Great, all tell us that this 
church was founded by St. Peter ; but we 
learn, from superior authority, that they 
which were scattered abroad upon the per- 
secution of Stephen traveled as far as An- 
tioch, preaching the word to the Jews only.' 
(Acts xi. 19.) This seems to have been the 
occasion of introducing Christianity at An- 
tioch. After this, as the converts needed 
some one to confirm them in the faith which 
they had newly embraced, the church at 
Jerusalem sent forth Barnabas, not Peter, 
that he should go as far as Antioch : and 
when Barnabas found that he needed some 
further assistance, instead of applying to 
Peter, he 'departed to Tarsus to seek Saul ; 
and when he had found him, he brought 
him to Antioch. And it came to pass that 
a whole year they assembled themselves 
with the church, and taught much people. 
And the disciples were called Christians 
first at Antioch.' (Acts xi. 25, 26.) In all 
these transactions we have not one word 
about Peter ; but, on the contrary, the hiti- 
mations appear strongly in favor of Paul, 
as the first founder of the church in this 
place. 

"We read, indeed, in another place, that 
St. Peter was at Antioch, but the circum- 
stance is not mentioned to his honor ; for 
St. Paul, observing the oSense he had given 
by his dissimulation, withstood him to the 
face, which we can hardly suppose he would 
have done if Peter had been the founder of 
the church, and if he now stood at the head 
of his own diocese. 

"Barouius, indeed, aware of these difficul- 
ties, is very willing that St. Peter should 
resign his bishopric at Antioch, upon con- 
dition that St. Paul, acting as his vicar, be 



CHAP. II.] 



THE MINISTRY. 



53T 



allowed to have erected one there by his au- 
thority. But even this will not do ; neither 
can the supposition be reconciled with the 
positive declarations of those who assert 
that he was a long time bishop there. 

"If we turn from the apostles to their 
successors in this church, we shall find our- 
selves equally destitute of firm footing. 
Baronius assures us that the apostles left 
two bishops behind them in this place, one 
for the Jews and the other for the Gentiles. 
These were Ignatius and Euodius. Eusebi- 
ns says expressly, that Euodius was the first 
bishop of Antioch, and that Ignatius suc- 
ceeded him. But, on the contrary, St. 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, and the author of 
the Constitutions, declare, with equal as- 
surance, that St. Peter and St. Paul both 
laid their hands on Ignatius ; but, unfortu- 
nately, it appears that St. Peter was dead 
before Ignatius was bishop in this place. 

"The settlement of the Church of Eome, 
and its much-extolled apostolical succession 
of bishops, is involved, if possible, in still 
greater perplexity, confusion, and disorder. 
According to some, this church was founded 
by St. Peter ; others say it was by St 
Paul ; some introduce both ; and others 
assert that it was neither. Of this latter 
opinion were the learned Salmasius and 
others. But let us allow that St. Peter 
actually was at Eome, of what advantage 
will this be to the succession of bishops ? If 
Peter was there, it is equally certain that 
St. Paul was there also ; and under these 
circumstances it will be hard to determine 
who was bishop. St. Paul was there first, 
and on this account he is preferred by many 
of the ancients to St. Peter ; and in the 
seal of that church the former is placed on 
the right hand, and the latter on the left. 
But still this does not determine who was 
bishop. To accommodate this business, 
they have agreed to make them both bish- 
ops ; and this unhappily destroys the unity 
of the episcopate, by placing two supremes 
at the same time in the same church. 

"But whatever uncertainty may accom- 
pany the question as to the first bishop, 



those who succeeded him are known with 
even less assurance. On this point the an- 
cients and the moderns are strongly divided. 
Some will have Cletus expunged out of the 
table, as being the same with Anacletus ; 
and thus fixing Linus at the head of the 
succession, cause him to be followed by 
Anacletus and Clemens. In this manner 
Irenagus represents the case. Others will 
have Cletus and Anacletus to be both re- 
tained as distinct bishops, having Linus 
standing between them. At the same time, 
in some of the ancient catalogues, Anacle- 
tus is excluded ; and, what is remarkable, 
he is not to be found at this day in the ca- 
nons of the mass, and yet, in the Roman 
Martyrology, both Cletus and Anacletus 
are distinctly mentioned, and a different ac- 
count is given of the birth, pontificate, and 
martyrdom of each. 

"In the catalogue of Epiphanius, the ear- 
ly bishops of Rome are placed in the follow- 
ing orders : Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus, 
Clemens, and Euaristus. But in the cata- 
logue of Bucher they stand according to the 
following arrangement : Linus, Cletus, Clem- 
ens, and Euraistus ; and three names are 
entirely omitted, namely, Anicetus, Eleuthe- 
rius, and Zephyrinus. And what shall we 
do with the famous Clement ? Does he 
style himself bishop of Rome ? Or how 
came he to forget his title ? 

"It has been said by some, that after he 
had been St. Paul's companion, and was 
chosen by Peter to be bishop of Rome, he 
gave place to Linus. But others assert, 
with equal confidence, and perhaps with 
equal authority, that Linus and Clemens, 
and others, that Linus and Cletus, were 
bishops at the same time. Tertullian, Ruf- 
finus, and some others, place Clement next 
to St. Peter ,• Irenseus and Eusebius set 
Anacletus before him ; and Optatus makes 
both Anacletus and Cletus to precede him. 
And, finally, as though these strenuous de- 
fenders of apostolical succession were des- 
tined to render it ridiculous by the various 
methods they have adopted to defend this 
tender string, Austin, Damasus, and others, 



538 



THE MINISTRY. 



[book IV. 



will not allow him to grace the list, until 
the names of Anacletus, Cletus, and Linus 
have appeared. Such is the foundation of 
apostolical succession in the Church of 
Rome ! Surely it can be no breach of char- 
ity to assert that 

'The bold impostor 
Looks not more silly when the cheat's found 
out.' 

"It was not, therefore, without reason 
that Bishop Stillingfleet observed : 'The 
succession here is as muddy as the Tiber 
itself ; and if the line fails us here, we have 
little cause to pin our faith upon it, as to 
the certainty of any particular form of 
church government, which can be drawn 
from the help of the records of the primi- 
tive church.' (L-enicum, p. 312.) It can- 
not, therefore, but be evident to every un- 
prejudiced mind, that, since such confusion 
and disorder appear in the front of these 
tables of succession, where we might most 
naturally expect the greatest regularity and 
certainty, no dependence can be placed on 
their authority." 

3. Could the fact of the supposed succes- 
sion be proved, the corrupt channel through 
which it must have descended cannot fail to 
render it of no value. No succession can 
have reached our times, without having 
come through the dark channel of popery. 
It is known to all who have examined the 
history of the church, that she very soon 
departed from apostolic simplicity and puri- 
ty, and became deeply and darkly corrupt 
On the first reading of the history, the stu 
dent pauses to wonder that the apostolic 
church became so very corrupt in so short 
a time. The conversion of Oonstantine the 
Great to Christianity, which took place 
about A. D. 313, though it put a stop to 
the bloody persecutions which were up to 
that date waged against the Christians 
opened the way for the introduction of al- 
most universal corruption. Of his early 
operations, Dr. Mosheim says : "Although 
he permitted the church to remain a body 
politic, distinct from that of the state, as it 
had formerly been, yet he assumed to him- 



self the supreme power over this sacred 
body, and the right of modifying and gov- 
erning it in such a manner as should be 
most conducive to the public good. This 
right he enjoyed without any opposition, as 
none of the bishops presumed to call his au- 
thority in question." The moment the 
church was thus taken under the protection 
of the civil power, to be subject to it, and 
modified and governed by it, it became es- 
sentially a kingdom of this v/orld, and its 
subjects fought for it ; its character was in- 
volved in the character of the empire ; its 
destiny was linked to the destiny of the em- 
pire, and it became involved in the political 
corruptions, intrigues, and crimes of the 
centuries that followed. From this period 
onward, popes, bishops, and priests became 
political tools to do the bidding of a cor- 
rupt prince, or political aspirants them- 
selves, grasping after civil power in the use 
of intrigues, treacheries, and corruptions, as 
dark as have distinguished any age. This 
is the channel through which the boasted 
succession has come down to our modern 
apostles, and how much grace it has brought 
with it from the other side of the dark ages, 
the Christian reader can judge. It may be 
well to glance at the general corruptions of 
the Romish Church, through which alone 
the succession can have been derived. We 
will only name such as are universal, and 
were for ages before the Reformation, so 
that it will be seen that the line of succes- 
sion must have iDassed throusrh them, to 



reach us on this side. A.memg the doctrines 
of the church we may enumerate the fol- 
lowing. The infallibility of the Church of 
Rome is a fundamental doctrine. The supre- 
macy of the Pope is another doctrine. The 
Pope attained to supreme authority, most 
probably, in the seventh ceiitury. From 
this, to the commencement of the Reforma- 
tion by Luther, was about eight hundred 
years, during which time this doctrine pre- 
vailed both theoretically and practically. 

The doctrine of seven sacraments consti- 
tutes another fundamental article in the 
Romish creed. They are baptism, confirm- 



CHAP. II.] 



THE MINISTEY. 



539 



ation, the eucharist, penance, extreme unc- 
tion, orders, and matrimony. The council 
of Trent pronounces an anathema on those 
who say that the sacraments are more or 
fewer than seven, and declares that every 
one is accursed who affirms that penance is 
not truly a sacrament instituted by Christ 
in the universal church. 

The doctrine of merits is another funda- 
mental article of faith with this mother of 
all who claim the virtue of the succession. 
The doctrine is that men can do more than 
duty requires, and thereby purchase more 
grace, and a higher state in glory. This 
leads to the doctrine of satisfactions, which 
is also fundamental. It is that penitents 
may make satisfaction for their sins by 
suffering. Here also comes in the doctrine 
of confession to a priest, and the perform- 
ance of the penance he enjoys. Associated 
with this is the doctrine of indulgences. 
The principle is this : According to the 
Eomish Church, upon which we are de- 
pendent for succession, the good works of 
the saints, over and above what is neces- 
sary to save themselves, are deposited with 
the infinite merits of Christ in one common 
and inexhaustible treasury ; and that the 
keys of this treasury were given to St. Pe 
ter and to his successors, the popes. Thus 
each Pope in succession holds the keys of 
this treasury of merits, and may open it at 
pleasure, and for a given sum of money sell 
out quantities of merit suited to the demerit 
of the crime the purchaser has committed, 
or proposes to commit. These indulgen- 
cies were first invented more than three 
hundred years before the Protestant branch 
of the glorious succession broke off, and 
formed a separate channel. Pope Leo X. 
granted to Albert, elector of Mentz and 
archbishop of Magdeburg, the benefit of 
the iudulgencies of Saxony and the neigh- 
boring parts, and sold out those of other 
countries to the highest bidders. These in 
turn, hired preachers as their agents to go 
among the people and sell iudulgencies to 
commit sin. Here is a form of one of these 
indulgences : 



" May our Lord Jesus Christ have mer- 
cy upon thee, and absolve thee by the mer- 
its of his most holy passion. And I, by 
his authority, that of his blessed apostles 
Peter and Paul, and of the most holy Pope, 
granted and committed to me in these parts, 
do absolve thee, first from all ecclesiastical 
censures, in whatever manner they have 
been incurred ; then from all thy sins, 
transgressions, and excesses, how enormous 
soever they may be : even from such as 
are reserved for the cognizance of the holy 
See, and as far as the keys of the holy 
church extend, I remit to you all punish- 
ment which you deserve in purgatory on 
their account ; and I restore you to the 
holy sacraments of the church, to the unity 
of the faithful, and to that innocence and 
purity which you possessed at baptism : so 
that when you die, the gates of punishment 
shall be shut, and the gates of the paradise 
of delights be opened ; and if you shall not 
die at present, this grace shall remain in 
full force when you are at the point of 
death. In the name of the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost." 

These indulgences were sold at prices 
graduated to the supposed guilt incurred 
by the commission of different crimes. In 
a book called the tax of the sacred Roman 
Chancery, is found the exact sums to be 
levied for the pardon of each particular sin. 
The following are some of the prices of 
crime, as nearly as the amount can be 
given in whole numbers, in dollars and 
cents : 

For procuring abortion, - - $1 66 
For sacrilege, - - - - 2 22 
For taking a false oath in a criminal 

case 2 00 

For robbing, - - - - 2 66 
For burning a neighbor's house - 2 66 
For defiling a virgin, - - - 2 00 
For incest, - - - . 1 66 
For murdering a layman, - ' - 1 66 
For keeping a concubine, - - 2 33 
For laying violent hands on a clergy- 
man - - - - * - - 2 33 
To show the bearing that this has upon 



540 



THE MINISTRY. 



[book IV„ 



the succession, it should be remarked that 
these indulgencies were first sold by bish- 
ops — all bishops haying the right to sell 
them. The practice became very general, 
so that those who boast of the succession 
must admit that they have received it from 
hands that sold for money the privilege of 
committing all manner of crimes. After 
the bishops had practiced it for a time, the 
Pope took the matter into his own hands, 
and sold out the right for different coun- 
tries as described above. As authority 
for this statement, the following extract is 
introduced from Dr. Mosheim's Church 
History : 

" The general prevalence of ignorance 
and superstition was dexterously, yet basely 
improved, by the rulers of the church, to 
fill their coffers, and to drain the purses of 
the deluded multitude : indeed each rank 
and order of the clergy had a peculiar 
method of fleecing the people. The bish- 
ops, when they wanted money for their 
private pleasures, or for the exigencies of 
the church, granted to their flock the pow- 
er of purchasing the remission of the penal- 
ties imposed upon transgressors, by a sum 
of money, which was to be applied to cer- 
tain religious purposes ; or, in other words, 
they published indulgencies, which became 
an inexhaustible source of opulence to the 
episcopal orders, and enabled them, as is 
well known, to form and execute the most 
difficult schemes for the enlargement of 
their authority, and to erect a multitude of 
sacred edifices, which augmented consid- 
erably the external pomp and splendor of 
the church. The abbots and monks, who 
were not qualified to grant indulgences, 
had recourse to other methods of enriching 
their convents. They carried about the 
country the carcases and relicts of the 
saints in solemn procession, and permitted 
the multitude to behold, touch, and em- 
brace, at fixed prices, these sacred and 
lucrative remains. The monastic orders 
often gained as much by this raree-show, 
as the bishops did by their indulgences. 

" When the Eoman pontiffs cast an eye 



upon the immense treasures that the infe- 
rior rulers of the church were accumulat- 
ing by the sale of indulgences, they thought 
proper to limit the power of the bishops in 
remitting the penalties imposed upon trans- 
gressors, and assumed, almost entirely, this 
profitable traffic to themselves. In conse- 
quence of this new measure, the court of 
Rome became the general magazine of in- 
dulgencies ; and the pontiffs, when either 
the w^ants of the church, the emptiness of 
their coffers, or the demon of avarice, 
prompted them to look out for new subsi- 
dies, published not only a general, but also 
a complete, or what they call a plenary re- 
mission of the temporal pains and penalties 
annexed by the church to certain trans- 
gressions. They went still farther ; and not 
only remitted the penalties which the civil 
and ecclesiastical laws had enacted against 
transgressors, but audaciously usurped the 
authority which belongs to God alone, and 
impiously pretended to abolish even the 
punishments which are reserved in a future 
state for the workers of iniquity ; a step 
which the bishops, with all their avarice 
and presumption, had never once ventured 
to take."— [Part II, chap. 3. Pages 320, 
321. 

Another doctrine of the Romish church 
is the celibacy of her clergy. This was 
enforced, in England, nearly four hundred 
years before the Reformation. To this 
may be added the worship of images and 
pictures, and the intercession of saints. 
Finally, the church of Rome maintains 
that unwritten traditions ought to be ad- 
ded to the Holy Scriptures in order to sup- 
ply their defects. What gives peculiar 
point to all this, is the fact that all these 
things have to be received, professed, and 
sworn to by every one who enters into holy 
orders in the church of Rome, so that there 
is no possibility of having any succession 
which does not come through men ignorant 
and base enough to receive, hold, profess, 
swear to, and practice all these abomina- 
tions. 

There is one other view of this subject 



CHAP, II.] 



THE MINISTRY. 



541 



which it may be well to take before we 
dismiss it, and that is the New Testament 
view of the apostacy, and the coming of the 
man of sin. That the New Testament 
writers, and St. Paul in particular, foresaw 
by the spirit of prophecy a general apos- 
tacy, cannot be doubted, and we think it 
will appear, on examination, not only that 
reference is made to the corruptions of 
Kome, but that she is represented as so 
corrupt, and so abandoned and condemned 
of God, as to render it worse than trifling 
to claim her as a channel through which 
we have received divine rights and ordinan- 
ces, communicating spiritual grace, which 
God does not and cannot communicate to 
us on this side of the dark ages, save 
through this mother of harlots. We will 
glance at a few of these allusions. 

2 Thess. ii. 3, 4 : " Let no man deceive 
you by any means : for that day shall not 
come, except there come a falling away 
first, and that man of sin be revealed, the 
son of perdition ; who opposeth and exalt 
eth himself above all that is called God, or 
that is worshipped ; so that he as God sit- 
teth in the temple of God, showing himself 
that he is God." 

Where can we find a better fulfillment of 
this than in the assumptions of the Romish 
Church above described, in which she 
claims the power to overrule the divine 
law, to pardon sinners, to hold the keys of 
heaven and hell, and to admit to, or exclude 
from both the one and the other, as the 
Pope is pleased to give the order ? 

1 Tim. iv. 1-3 : " Now the spirit speak- 
eth expressly, that in the latter times some 
shall depart from the faith, giving heed to 
seducing spirits and doctrines of devils ; 
speaking lies in hypocrisy ; having the 
conscience seared with a hot iron ; forbid- 
ding to marry, and commanding to abstain 
from meats, which God hath commanded 
to be received." 

Here is a class of persons, or a commu 
nity, of sufiicient consequence to be pointed 



history of the church. It cannot refer to 
the Jews nor to the heathen, for they are 
described as departing from the faith — that 
is, the doctrines of the Gospel. It must 
therefore refer to some branch of the Chris- 
tian church, or to the church during some 
particular age. But we find nothing in 
Christendom to answer the description, 
save in the Romish church. Here we find 
its fulfillment. Their doctrines as shown 
above are the doctrines of devils ; they for- 
bid to marry, and command to abstain 
from meats. 

That the same corruptions are referred 
to in the Apocalypse, cannot be doubted. 
In Chap. xiii. 11-17, under the figure of 
a beast, it is believed that we have a de- 
scription of the Romish church and her cor- 
ruptions. Again, it is believed that the 
Romish church is the subject of the seven- 
teenth chapter. Here it is represented as 
a woman, called *•' the great whore, the mo- 
ther of harlots, and abominations of the 
earth," and she is declared to be "drunk 
with the blood of the saints." Such, then, 
is the channel through which the succession 
has come, if there be any succession, and 
we leave it for the Christian reader to judge 
if the community of which inspiration gives 
such a view can have any vestige of Chris- 
tian character left, or can be made a chan- 
nel through which grace and apostolic unc- 
tion can flow uncorrupted from Peter and 
Paul to the ministers of our own times ? 
" Drunk with the blood of the saints !" 
How true is this of the Church of Rome! 
One million of the Albigenses and Walden- 
ses perished at her hand in France alone. 
From the institution of the Jesuits, in a 
little over thirty years, nine hundred thou- 
sand orthodox Christians were slain by the 
common executioner. In the space of thirty 
years the Inquisition, by various tortures, de- 
stroyed one hundred and fifty thousand Chris- 
tians. These are but items of her crimes. 
Well may she be said to be " drunk with 
the blood of the saints." The perpetrators 



out by the Holy Ghost, as one of the of these crimes are the links which form the 
marked events that should distinguish the | boasted chain of succession, extending 



542 



THE MINISTRY. 



[BOOK IV' 



through long, dark centuries, upon which 
is supposed to have come down the electric 
fluid of apostolic virtue. Enough has been 
said. "We will leave those who glory in 
such a succession to enjoy it, while we pre- 
fer looking for a gracious influence to give 
validity to our acts, to come more directly 
from the throne of grace. 

4. The doctrine which asserts the neces- 
sity of a succession from the apostles, in an 
unbroken series of physical contacts, by the 
imposition of hands in what is called ordi- 
nation, is inconsistent with a supreme moral 
government, maintained over individually 
responsible moral agents. 

It places the Christian enterprise beyond 
the control of the divine government, in the 
use of its ordinary means, and gives it into 
the hands of a class of human agencies, 
who, in view of their moral agency, may or 
may not execute the trust, leaving God no 
power to renew those agencies or employ 
others, should they fail. The doctrine in 
question is, that Christ settled the govern- 
ment of his church in the hands of bishops, 
with power to appoint successors, and with 
the exclusive right and power to call, con- 
secrate and send ministers to preach the 
Gospel, so that without their consecration 
and commission there can be no valid min- 
istry, no sacraments, and no church. Kow 
these bishops are moral agents, and, as such, 
may disobey God, and refuse to execute 
their trust. Indeed, it cannot be denied 
that many have thus disobeyed God, and 
failed to execute their trust ; and if many 
have failed, all may. Moreover, these bish 
ops at different times have been under the 
control of the civil government, which has 
restrained them from the execution of their 
trust, only so far as it should dictate, both 
in relation to the number and character of 
those to be consecrated by them, and the 
fields of their labor. Here, then, God has 
placed the Christian enterprise beyond his 
control, by placing it, first, in the hands of 
a class of men called bishops, who may, as 
moral agents, refuse to fulfill their trust ; 
and, secondly, by placing it in the hands of 



men who are themselves subject to civil 
government, and who may be prevented by 
it from executing their trust. This puts the 
kingdom which is not of this world under 
the control of the kingdom which is of this 
world, with power to annihilate it. 

The force of this argument depends upon 
the fact that man is a moral accountable 
agent, and that God governs him, as such, 
by moral and not by physical power. God 
employs human agencies in carrying on the i 
Christian enterprise, and as these agencies 
may fail, and do often fail to execute their 
trust, by a perversion of their moral liberty, 
he m-ust and does leave himself free to em- 
ploy other agencies, when any of them fail. 
To illustrate, suppose our views of the sub- 
ject under discussion to be correct ; suppose 
no succession be necessary to a valid minis- 
try ; suppose sound piety, sufficient natural 
and acquired gifts, the call of God impres- 
sed upon the soul by the Spirit, in the form 
of a sense of duty, and the approbation of 
the church be all that is necessary to con- 
stitute a valid minister, and there is no 
chance for a failure. The lamp of the min- 
istry may go out, or be blown out as often 
as you please, and it can be kindled up 
again in any part of the world, at any time, 
where the lamp of piety burns ; and if one 
class of agencies prove unfaithful, God can 
call others into the field. This is the way 
God has operated. He has often discarded 
old agencies when they ceased to be useful, 
and employed new ones. 

But suppose the doctrine of the necessity 
of a succession be true ; — then if these 
bishops fail through their own corruption, 
and a perversion of their moral agency, or 
through the corrupt and controlling influ- 
ence of civil government, there is no power 
in earth or heaven that can renew the 
work. The ministry having once become 
extinct, God himself cannot renew it with- 
out a special revelation from heaven for a 
re-organization of the church. Thus does 
this doctrine of succession place the very 
existence of the ministry and the church 
beyond the control of God by the ordinary 



CHAP. III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



543 



means wliicli he employs to carry on his 
gracious designs, and gives to a compara- 
tively few persons, called bishops, many of 
whom have been as rotten specimens of hu- 
manity as have ever cursed the world, the 
power to blot both ministry and church 
from the earth by refusing or neglecting to 
appoint successors, or to ordain priests. 
The history of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church of this country furnishes an illus- 
tration of the facility with which all Gospel 
ordinances might have been forever shut 
out from these lands, upon the principle of 
the necessity of a succession. At the time 
of the Kevolution there were no bishops here, 
and but few ministers of the Church of Eng- 
land, and the people were as sheep without 
a shepherd. To obtain the succession was 
the first thing to be done in removing the 
difficulty. But this itself was the great 
difficulty. Dr. Seabury was the first that 
made the attempt. He went to England 
and applied to the bishop of London, for 
especial orders, and was refused on the 
ground of legal impediments — no English 
bishop being authorized to ordain any man 
a bishop who should not take the oath of 
allegiance to the English government. He 
then went to Scotland, and got ordained a 
bishop by the non-juring bishops of that 
country ; but on his return to America his 
ordination was deemed unsatisfactory by a 
majority of a general convention that as- 
sembled in Philadelphia and considered the 
case. 

Next, Dr. White and Dr. Prevost made 
the trial, and on applying to tl^e archbishop 
of Canterbury, they met with the same diffi- 
culty. It is said that they then applied to 
Dr. Franklin for advice, who was at that 
time our minister in France. He consulted 
a French clergyman, and found that they 
could not be ordained in France, unless they 
would vow obedience to the archbishop of 
Paris ; and the Pope's nuncio, whom he 
consulted, informed him that the Eomish 
bishop in America could not lay hands on 
them unless they turned Catholics. Frank- 
lin then advised them that the Episcopal 



clergy should create a bishop for themselves, 
or turn Presbyterians. Finally, an act of 
Parliament was passed authorizing the Eng- 
lish bishops to ordain bishops for America, 
and the succession was obtained. Here, 
then, the English Parliament, the kingdom 
which is of this world, ha*d the power to 
have excluded the kingdom which is not of 
this world from these United States, upon 
the supposition that without the succession 
there can be no ministry, no ordinances and 
no church. Suppose, then, they had re- 
fused to pass the necessary law ; those suc- 
cessors of the apostles would have had no 
power to have spread their apostolic virtues 
beyond the limits of the English govern- 
ment, and the ministry, ordinances, and the 
church itself must have been excluded from 
the United States, beyond the power of 
God himself to plant them here, unless he 
could first get the consent of the British 
Parliament, who had taken under its con- 
trol the only agencies on earth by which a 
true ministry, true sacraments, and a true 
church can be propagated. Can any one 
really believe that God has so far put his 
own gracious purposes beyond his own con- 
trol. We cannot believe it if others do. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE SACKAMENTS. 

The word Sacrament is derived from the 
Latin word sacramentum, which signifies an 
oath, particularly the oath taken by sol- 
diers to be true to their country and gener- 
al. The word was adopted by the writers 
of the Latin church, to denote those ordi- 
nances of religion by which Christians came 
under an obligation of obedience to God, 
and which obligation, they supposed, was 
equally sacred with that of an oath. Of 
sacraments, in this sense of the word, Pro- 
testant churches admit of but two ; and it 
is not easy to conceive how a greater num- 



544 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



ber can be made out from Scripture, if the 
definition of a sacrament be just whicli is 
given by the church of England. By that 
church, the meaning of the word sacrament 
is declared to be " an outward and visible 
sign of an inward and spiritual grace given 
unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a 
means whereby we receive the same, and a 
pledge to assure us thereof." According to 
this definition, baptism and the Lord's sup- 
per are certainly sacraments, for each con- 
sists of an outward and visible sign of what 
is believed to be an inward and spiriutal 
grace, both were ordained by Christ him- 
self, and in the reception of each does the 
Christian solemnly devote himself to the 
service of his divine Master. 

With the above view Protestant Chris- 
tians generally agree. 

Burnet, on the Articles, says, *' This dif- 
ference is to be put between sacraments and 
other ritual actions ; that whereas other rites 
are badges and distinctions by which Chris- 
tians are known, a sacrament is more than 
a bare matter of form ; as in the Old Testa- 
ment, circumcision and propitiatory sacri- 
fices were things of a different nature and 
order from all the other ritual precepts con- 
cerning their cleansings, the distinctions of 
days, places, and meats. These were, in- 
deed, precepts given them of God ; but they 
were not federal acts of renewing the cove- 
nant, or reconciling themselves to God. By 
circumcision they received the seal of the 
covenant, and were brought under the obli- 
g'ation of the whole law ; they were made by 
it debtors to it ; and when by their sins they 
had provoked God's wrath, they were recon- 
ciled to him by their sacrifices, with which 
atonement was made, and so their sins were 
forgiven them ; the nature and end of those 
was, to be federal acts, in the offering of 
which the Jews kept to their part of the 
covenant, and in the accepting of which 
God maintained it on his part ; so we see a 
plam difference between these and a mere 
rite, which, though commanded, yet must 
pass only for the badge of a profession, as 
the doing of it is an act of obedience to a 



[book. IV. 

Divine law. Now, in the new dispensation, 
though our Saviour has eased us of that law 
of ordinances, that grievous yoke, and those 
beggarly elements, which were laid upon 
the Jews ; yet since we are still in the body 
subject to our senses, and to sensible things, 
he has appointed some federal actions to be 
both the visible stipulations and professions 
of our Christianity, and the conveyancers 
to us of the blessings of the Gospel." 

The above is a clear and well drawn dis- 
tinction between sacraments and other relig- 
ious rites. 

The sacraments then are two. Baptism 
and the Lord's Supper. 



SECTION I. 
Baptism — Its Nature and Design. 

I. Baptism was appointed by Christ, as 
a permanent Gospel rite, to be continued to 
the end of the Christian dispensation. 

In support of this, the following consider- 
ations are urged. 

1. The terms of the appointment imply 
the perpetuity of the rite. 

The first order which Christ issued to his 
disciples, is not upon record. The fact that 
they baptised is recorded, John iii. 22 : 
" After these things came Jesus and his dis- 
ciples into the land of Judea ; and there he 
tarried with them, and baptized." 

John iv. 1-3 : " When therefore the Lord 
knew the Pharisees had heard that Jesus 
made and baptized more disciples than John, 
(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his 
disciples,) He left Judea, and departed again 
into Galilee." 

From this it appears that Christ never 
baptized with his own hands, but that his 
disciples did baptize in his name, and under 
his direction. This is all we kn ow of this 
baptism. What the words of the order were 
under which the disciples acted, we know 
not. But when Christ gave to his minis- 
ters their final commission, we have the 
words recorded, Matt, xxviii. 17-20 : "And 
Jesus came, and spake unto them, saying, 



CHAP. III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



545 



All power is given unto men in heaven and 
in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all na- 
tions, baptizing them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost ; Teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you : and 
lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end 
of the world. Amen." 

Marli xvi. 15, 16 : "And he said unto 
them. Go ye into all the world, and preach 
the Gospel to every creature. He that be- 
lieveth and is baptized shall be saved ; but 
he that believeth not shall be damned." 

There is a difference in the record between 
Matthew and Mark, but this may be ac- 
counted for on the ground that neither has 
recorded all that was said, and that they 
have given different parts of the conversa 
tion. The words clearly imply the perpe 
tuity of baptism. The commission is to all 
nations, and it anticipates two things, name- 
ly, instruction and baptism. 

The command to baptize is just as exten- 
sive and lasting as the command to teach 
and both comprehend the whole world, and 
extend to the end of time. " I am with you 
alway, even unto the end of the world," are 
words which render the commission a con- 
tinuous one through their successors, and 
baptism is as abiding as the ministry itself. 

2. The above is clearly the sense in which 
the disciples understood our Lord, and 
practiced upon their commission. 

In the first sermon that Peter preached 
under his new commission, he said, '• Eepent 
and be baptized, every one of you." Acts ii. 
38. They baptized all their converts, as is 
clear from the history of their transanctions. 

3. Those who immediately followed the 
apostles in the work of the ministry, con- 
tinued to baptize, as the apostle had done 
before them. This must render it certain 
that the apostles understood that baptism 
was to be continued in the church. They 
were inspired, but they had no inspired suc- 
cessors, what, therefore, the apostles left in 
the hands, of their successors, as Christian 
rites must remain such to the end of time, 
for there can be no repeal without inspira- 

35 



tion, or a revelation from God. If the apos- 
tles had understood that baptism was a tem- 
pory rite, they would have discontinued it 
while they lived, but this they did not do. 
It having been instituted by Christ, none 
but inspired men, none but those to whom 
God reveals his will, can have a right to 
discontinue, but the only class of inspired 
men that have existed, the men to whom 
the rite was given, did not discontinue it, 
but left it as the practice of the church, 
and as no one but inspired men can set it 
aside, it must remain perpetually. The ar- 
gument is conclusive that baptism is still 
binding as a Christian ordinance, and must 
remain so to the end of time. 

II. Baptism as a Christian ordinance is 
very significant and important. 

1. It is, under the Gospel, the seal of God's 
covenant of grace. The Old Testament had 
its seal. The seal was given to Abraham 
with whom God entered into covenant. 

Eom. iv. 11 : "And he received the sign 
of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness 
of the faith which he had yet being uncircum- 
cised : that he might be the father of all 
them that believe, though they be not cir- 
cumcised, that righteousness might be im- 
puted unto them also." 

The New Testament has its seal, and that 
seal is baptism. 

Col. ii. 11, 12 : " In whom also ye are 
circumcised with the circumcision made 
without hands, in putting ofi" the body of the 
sins of the flesh by the circumcision of 
Christ : Buried with him in baptism, where- 
in also ye are risen with him through the 
faith of the operation of God, who hath 
raised him from the dead." 

Eom. vi. 3 : " Know ye not that so many 
of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, 
were baptized into his death ?" 

A seal is that which confirms and makes 
a contract or covenant binding. By bap- 
tism, we take upon us the obligations of the 
covenant of God. The following are the 
terms of the covenant. 

Heb. viii- 10 : " For this is the covenant 
that I will make with the house of Israel, 



546 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



[book IV. 



after those days, saith the Lord ; I will put 
my laws into their mind, and write them in 
their hearts : and I will be to them a God, 
and they shall be to me a people." 

This is what God engages to do on his 
part. We have another form of God's 
promise connected with what he requires 
of us. 

2 Cor. vi. 17, 18 : " Wherefore come out 
from among them, and be ye separate, saith 
the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing ; 
and I will receive you ; And will be a Father 
unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daugh- 
ters, saith the Lord Almighty." 

We enter into our engagement to serve 
God in due public form, when we are bap- 
tized. Baptism is a pledge on our part to 
God, and the world, that we will live ac- 
cording to the rules of Christianity. All 
men are always under obligation to be good 
Christians, but they do not acknowledge it. 
Baptism is an acknowledgment of the ob- 
ligation, and a pledge to abide it. In a 
word, we pledge ourselves to the terms of 
God's covenant, and seal the contract, bap- 
tism being the seal. If Baptism is not such 
a seal, the Gospel has none, and there is no 
recognized form of entering into covenant 
relation with God. God clearly seals the 
covenant on his part with each individual, 
by the Spirit. The covenant was confirmed 
with all men in Christ. 

Gal. iii. 16, 17 : " Now to Abraham and 
his seed were the promises made. He saith 
not. And to seeds, as of many ; but as of 
one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And 
this I say, That the covenant that was con- 
firmed before of God in Christ, the law, 
which was four hundred and thirty years 
after, cannot disannul, that it should make 
the promise of none effect." 

The covenant secures to all the offer of 
salvation on Gospel terms. But each must 
, ratify it personally and individually for him- 
self. When God gave the covenant to Abra- 
. ham he gave him a seal, which was circum- 
cision, and this was placed upon all who 
became visibly interested in the covenant. 
Baptism is the right by which we now en- 



ter into visible relation with God, and each 
should ratify the covenant for himself, by 
being baptized. There is no other Chris- 
tian ordinance by which it can be claimed 
that we assume personally a covenant rela- 
tion to God and the obligations of such re- 
lation. 

It cannot be affirmed of the Lord's sup- 
per, for that is a family rite and belongs to 
the children of the covenant. The celebra- 
tion of the Lord's supper is a continuous 
act ; it is to be repeated, but baptism is not 
repeated, it is clearly therefore initiatory, 
while the Lord's supper is for the initia- 
ted. 

2. Baptism is a sign or symbol of the 
purification of the heart by the Holy Spirit. 
It is an outward visible sign of an internal 
washing. Outward washing with water is 
a universal method of cleansing from exter- 
nal impurities, and hence is the most appro- 
priate and expressive symbol to denote, as 
an outward sign, the internal cleansing from 
sin. Purification is always associated with 
baptism. 

Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27 : " Then will I sjorin- 
kle clean water upon you, and ye shall be 
clean : from all your filthiness, and from all 
your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart 
also will I give you, and a new spirit will I 
put within you : and I will take away the 
stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give 
you a heart of flesh. And I will put my 
Spirit within you, and cause you to walk 
in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judg- 
ments, and do them." 

So Christ said, John iii. 5 : " Except a 
man be born of water and of the Spirit, 
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 

The Saviour connects the water with the 
Spirit, the one is external, the other is in- 
ternal ; the one is visible, the other is invis- 
ible ; the one is the sign or symbol, the 
other is the thing symbolized or signified. 

Eph. V. 25, 26 : " Christ loved the church 
and gave himself for it that he might sanc- 
tify and cleanse it with the washing of wa- 
ter by the word." 

Titus iii. 5 : " He hath saved us by the 



CHAP. III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



547 



washing of regeneration, and renewing of 
the Holy Ghost." 

The idea of purification is contained in 
all these texts. 

Heb. X. 22 : " Let ns draw near with a 
true heart, in full assurance of faith, hav- 
ing our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- 
science, and our bodies washed with pure 
water." 

These frequent all'isious to water can have 
no significancy, unless they refer to baptism, 
for water is not employed for any other pur- 
pose but baptism, in the Christian religion. 
And the conclusion is very clear that it 
signifies purification. There is an inward 
washing, and the external application of 
water denotes this internal purification. 
Circumcision was also external, and inter- 
nal, and it was the internal that saved, while 
the external was only a sign of a real work 
within. 

Rom. ii. 28, 29 : " For he is not a Jew 
which is one outwardly, neither is that cir 
cumcision which is outward in the flesh ; 
but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and 
circumcision is that of the heart, in the 
spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is 
not of men but of God." 

It should never be forgotten, that the 
sign may exist without the thing signified ; 
and so may the thing signified exist without 
external sign. 

3. Baptism is the initiatory rite, by which 
persons are introduced into the visible 
church, and visibly connected with Christ 
and his people. 

This follows, necessarily, from the fact 
that it is the seal or confirmation of the 
Gospel covenant, as proved above. In this 
aspect it is a sign and mark of difierence 
between those who are the visible peopleof 
God, and those who are not. 

"VVe must not confound union with the 
visible church, with union with the real 
church or union with Christ. This distinc- 
tion is necessary to keep free from the doc- 
trine of baptismal regeneration. The re- 
newing of the Spirit connects us vvith Christ 
in fact ; baptism connects us with him and 



his people in visible form. The one may 
exist without the other. There are many 
baptized infidels, in which case they have a 
visible union with Christ and his church, 
without a vital saving union with either. 
So there may be, under some circum- 
stances, persons who have received the 
internal baptism, the renewing of the heart 
by the Spirit, who have never received wa- 
ter baptism. Such have no visible union 
with Christ, and his people, but have a real 
vital saving union with both. 

With this view before us, we shall better 
understand the words of Christ, which have 
been already quoted. " Except a man be 
born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of God." By the 
kingdom of God here, we must understand 
the Gospel church. With it there is no 
complete and saving union but by being 
born of water and of the Spirit. The wa- 
ter, by baptism visibly connects us with the 
visible church ; the Spirit invisibly and vi- 
tally connects us with the invisible church, 
or constitutes us one of Christ's flock, in 
fact. How else can any man explain, how 
a birth by water is necessary to enter into 
the kingdom of God. Without the Spirit 
our baptism with water only presents us 
visibly to the eye of the world, in union with 
the church of Christ, while, in fact, we have 
no such vital union. The Spirit without 
the water connects us with Christ, but 
leaves us visibly to the eye of the world out- 
side of his church and flock. It is not easy 
to conceive of any other explanation of our 
Saviour's language, which will preserve its 
directness and simplicity, and yet make it 
harmonize with evangelical Christian expe- 
rience. The same general truth is taught 
by Paul. 

Gal. iii. 27 : " For as many of you as 
have been baptized into Christ, have put on 
Christ." 

This text most clearly implies that bap- 
tism is the outward visible act and rite, by 
which we join ourselves to Christ and his 
people. How else, or in what other sense 
are persons baptized into Christ ? There 



548 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



[book IV. 



is no other sense only that of baptismal re- 
generation, which cannot be allowed. We 
are baptized into Christ, by taking upon us 
the profession of the Christian religion, and 
by taking upon us the visible mark which 
Christ has ordered to be put upon his jflock, 
and this we do when we are baptized, for 
baptism is that mark. 

The objection that if baptism be the door 
into the visible church, it must also be the 
door out of the church, and if we baptize 
persons in, we must baptize them out, when 
they are excommunicated, is too superficial 
to need a reply, were it not that it has some- 
times been uttered by grave ministers. Bap- 
tism is not a literal door, but only an initia- 
tory rite appointed by Christ, but the 
form of initiation into any organic body, 
bears no relation to the form or manner of 
expulsion from the same body. Christ has 
appointed baptism as the form of entering 
into Christian relations and fellowship, but 
he has appointed no such form of withdraw- 
ing fellowship. Because the rite of circum- 
cision was the form of admitting persons 
from the heathen nations to the profession 
of the true religion, and into Jewish privi- 
leges and fellowship, it did not follow that, 
if they returned to heathenism, they must 
be circumsized out of the Jewish organiza- 
tion. Because we induct a man into the 
office of the ministry by laying on hands 
upon him, it does not follow that we must 
lay on hands upon him to depose him. The 
person going back to heathenism, after cir- 
cumcision, bore off with him the indelible 
mark of the true religion, to his disgrace as 
an apostate. So with those who have been 
baptized, and by this rite admitted to visi- 
ble union with Christ's visible church ; if 
they become apostates, they bear away the 
seal of the covenant, the mark of Christ, 
the impress of the Trinity, Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost, which can never be blotted 
out, but which will blaze as in letters of fire 
upon their souls in perdition. 

4. Baptism is a standing memorial of 
Christ, of the institution of the Christian re- 
ligion, and of course of its divinity and truth. 



Baptism being appointed as the seal of 
the covenant, as a sign of the end to be ac- 
complished, the purification of the heart, 
and the initiatory rite of admitting persona 
to the visible Christian family, it be- 
comes a memorial and proof of the whole 
system. 

(1.) If there had been no such person as 
Christ, there could be no such rite as bap- 
tism. Christianity has always had its ene- 
mies, who would have exposed and over- 
thrown it if they could. Now here is a 
rite practiced, said to have been appointed 
by Christ, and to have been practiced by 
his followers ever since. If it were not so, 
the enemies of Christianity wouid have 
made a record of the person, by whom it 
was first practiced, and of the time, place 
and circumstances of its introduction. This 
they have not done. The conclusion is that 
it was introduced by no other person, and 
at no other time and place than those which 
it reveals upon its face. This fact, this one 
rite is a monument of the truth of Chris- 
tianity, a moral break-water against which 
the angry waves of infidelity dash in vain. 

(2.) Baptism standing thus, as has been 
shown, is suggestive of all the vital doc- 
trines of Christianity. Upon its very face 
we read the name of the Triune God. The 
performance of the rite is a solemn act of 
consecrating the subject to the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost. It is also a most solemn 
act of worship rendered to the three divine 
persons in the unity of the Godhead. By 
the use of the water, it reminds us of our 
necessity of moral purification, that we are 
guilty and need pardon, and that we are 
polluted and need to be cleansed from sin. 
At the same time it presents the Father of 
whom we must seek pardon, it presents the 
Son by whose atonement alone pardon can 
be extended to sinners, and it presents the 
Holy Ghost, by whom our internal washing 
is to be accomplished. This train of thought 
suggested by baptism, might be carried much 
farther, but it is unnecessary. The rite of 
baptism, when comprehended in its extensive 
bearings, is a body of Christian theology. 



CHAP. III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



549 



SECTION II. 

The Subjects of Baptism. 

I. All believers, who profess faith in 
Christ, who have not been baptized, are 
proper subjects of baptism. The term be- 
lievers is here used to denote justified and 
regenerate persons, real Christians, made so 
by the renewing of the Holy Ghost. That 
such are proper subjects of baptism, they 
not having been baptized, all agree, who 
believe in water baptism in any circumstan- 
ces. As all are agreed on this point, no 
argument need be advanced to prove it. 

All who embrace Christianity as a sys- 
tem of revealed religion, and entertain an 
honest purpose to live it, are proper subjects 
of baptism, without reference to the question 
whether or not the Spirit has regenerated 
them, or whether or not they have obtained 
an evidence of their acceptance with God 
This is an important practical point, and a 
debated one. It is maintained by some 
that none are to be baptized but such as 
give reasonable evidence that they have al- 
ready received the remission of their sins, 
that they are regenerated. The view stated 
above stands opposed to this restricting 
baptism to actual experimental Christians 
The question is now fairly raised, are per- 
sons professing to believe in Christianity as 
a saving system, and professing penitence 
and a purpose to live a Christian life, enti- 
tled to baptism before professing to have 
received the remission of their sins, and a 
witness of their acceptance with God ? 

The affirmative of this question is the one 
to be maintained, and the whole power of 
Scriptural evidence is on this side of the 
question. 

So far as John's Baptism is concerned 
about which some have much to say, because 
it was in Jordan, there can be no doubt 
That they were all regenerated persons can- 
not be believed. That John supposed them 
all to be regenerated persons, cannot be be- 
heved. The plain words of the history must 
settle this question. 



Matt. iii. 5, 6, 11 : " Then went out to 
him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the 
region round about Jordan, And were bap- 
tized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. 
I indeed baptize you with water unto re- 
pentance : but he that cometh after me is 
mightier than I, whose shoes I am not 
worthy to bear : he shall baptize you with 
the Holy Ghost, and with fire." 

Mark i. 4, 5 : " John did baptize in the 
wilderness, and preach the baptism of repent- 
ance for the remission of sins. And there 
went out unto him all the land of Judea, 
and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized 
of him in the river of Jordan, confessing 
their sins." 

That they were all converted persons, in 
the sense of regeneration, cannot be believed. 
That they all confessed that they were sin- 
ners, and promised to believe on Christ, 
when he should come, there can be no doubt. 
The account of St. Luke varies a little in 
its particulars. 

Luke iii. 2-14 : " The word of God came 
unto John the son of Zacharias in the wil- 
derness. And he came into all the country 
about Jordan, preaching the baptism of re- 
pentance for the remission of sins ; Then 
said he to the multitude that came forth to 
be baptized of him, generation of vipers ! 
wha hath warned you to flee from wrath to 
come ? Bring forth, therefore, fruits worthy 
of repentance ; and begin not to say v/ithin 
yourselves. We have Abraham to our fath- 
er : for I say unto you, That God is able of 
these stones to raise up children unto Abra- 
ham. And now also the axe is laid unto 
the root of the trees ; every tree, therefore, 
which bringeth not forth fruit, is hewn down 
and cast into the fire. And the people 
asked him, saying. What shall we do then ? 
He answereth and saith unto them. He that 
hath two coats, let him impart to him that 
hath none ; and he that hath meat, let him 
do likewise. Then came also publicans to 
be baptised, and said unto him. Master, 
what shall we do ? And he said unto them, 
Exact no more than that which is appointed 
you. And the soldiers likewise demanded 



550 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



[book IV. 



of him, saying, And what shall we do ? And 
he said unto them. Do violence to no man, 
neither accuse any falsely ; and be content 
with your wages." 

That John examined the multitude, on 
Christian experience one by one, will be as- 
sumed by no one, unless the life of his creed 
depends upon that very improbable assump- 
tion. All the facts are against it. 

One more quotation will about finish the 
history of John's Baptism. 

Acts xix. 1-5 : " Paul having passed 
through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus ; 
and finding certain disciples. He said unto 
them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost 
since ye believed ? And they said unto him, 
We have not so much as heard whether 
there be any Holy G-host. And he said 
unto them, Unto what then were ye bap- 
tized? And they said, Unto John's bap- 
tism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized 
with the baptism of repentance, saying unto 
the people, that they should believe on him 
which should come after him, that is, on 
Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they 
were baptized in the name of the Lord 
Jesus." 

The simple point to be proved by these 
Scriptures, is, that John's baptism was not 
confined, or pretended, or designed to be 
confined, to those who were regenerated in 
heart. This point they most clearly prove. 

Now let us look at the subject under the 
authority of Christ. There are two ac- 
counts of the commission to baptize, one by 
Matthew, and the other by Mark. Mat- 
thew says not a word about faith, about be- 
lieving, or about regeneration. His words 
are, " Go teach all nations, baptizing them 
in the name of the Father, and of the Sou, 
and of the Holy Ghost." 

Mark says, "And he said unto them, Go 
ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel 
to every creature. He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved ; but he that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned." 

This is supposed by many to require what 
is called justifying faith, as a pre-requisite 
to baptism, but it requires no such thing. 



It requires only a general belief in the sense 
of credence. " He that credits this Gospel 
as a revelation from God." — Clarke. " Cred- 
its it to be true." — Barnes. All who re- 
ceived the Gospel under that commission, as 
true, and pledged to adopt it in life, were clear- 
ly entitled to receive baptism, and it will 
yet appear that it was in this sense the 
apostles practiced upon it. 

The first example we have is that given 
us by Peter, at the day of Pentecost. At 
the conclusion of Peter's sermon it is said. 
Acts ii. 37, 38 : " Now when they heard 
this, they were pricked in their heart, and 
said unto Peter and to the rest of the apos- 
tles, Men and brethren what shall we do ? 
Then Peter said unto them, Kepent, and 
be baptized every one of you in the name of 
Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins ; and 
ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." 

Here they were commanded to repent and 
be baptized " for the remission of their sins," 
that is as a means of obtaining pardon. The 
words can mean nothing else. It was ne- 
cessary for them to be baptized as a means 
of obtaining pardon, in the sense that any 
known duty must be performed by au 
awakened sinner, before he can obtain for- 
giveness and acceptance. They inquired as 
sinners, what they must do, for they were 
pricked in the heart, and Peter told them 
to repent and be baptized, as a means of relief. 
The promise which he added makes the 
same thing more certain. " And ye shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Thi6 
cannot mean the extraordinary gifts of the 
Holy Ghost of working miracles, for that 
was clearly never conferred upon that mul- 
titude of three thousand souls. They were 
not regenerated, had not been pardoned 
when Peter told them to be baptized, and 
promised them the gift of the Holy Ghost 
after their baptism ; by which internal bap- 
tism in its heart-renewing influence, must be 
meant. Here we have a clear case of bap- 
tism before what is called regeneration. It 
is then added, " Then they that gladly re- 
ceived his word," not they who mocked, 
" were baptized," and the same day there 



CHAP. III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



551 



were added unto them about three thousand 
souls." No doubt, on bemg baptized, they 
received the remission of sins, and the com 
fort of the Holy Ghost. 

The next baptismal scene occurred in 
Actsviii. 12,13 : "But when they believed 
Philip preaching the things concerning the 
kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus 
Christ, they were baptized, both men and 
women. Then Simon himself believed also 
and when he was baptized, he continued 
with Philip, and wondered, beholding the 
miracles and signs which were done." 

It is not doubted that there were sound 
conversions under the preaching of PhilijD, 
yet it is clear that a theoretical embracing 
of the Gospel was all that was required as 
a condition of baptism. Simon was bap- 
tized, but not regenerated, though it is de- 
clared that he believed. 

So in the case of the Ethiopian, verse 37. 
He inquired, " what doth hinder me to be 
baptized?" Philip replied, "If thou be- 
lievest with all thy heart, thou mayest.' 
And he answered and said, " I believe that 
Jesus Christ is the Son of God." On this 
faith Philip baptized him. " He went on 
his way rejoicing." for no doubt he received 
a great blessing in the act of being bap- 
tized. 

It is clear, then, that all who believed in 
the truth of Christianity, and entertain an 
honest purpose to live by it as a system of 
faith and duty, are Scriptural subjects of 
baptism. 

But it may be asked, would you now bap- 
tize men and women before converBion, or 
before they profess to have obtained pardon ? 
To be sure I would, if I believed that they 
desired it in connection with an honest pur- 
pose to seek God. It is the only Scriptural 
ground. If an awakened sinner should 
come to me, who had never been baptized, 
and ask me what he must do to be saved, I 
would tell him to be baptized, as one item 
in the list of duties I would lay before him. 

But it may be asked, what relation such 
persons should hold to the church. They 
ou"ht to be at once taken under the watch 



care of the church, and go forward in all 
Christian duties, for this is implied in their 
honest purpose to live a Christian life, upon 
the profession of which I would baptize them. 

III. The children of baptized parents, 
when presented by their parents, are proper 
subjects of baptism. 

This is really the most earnestly contested 
point in regard to the whole subject of bap- 
tism. And after so much has been said by 
others, but little new need be expected. A 
condensed statement of the points of the 
argument is all that will be attempted. 

1. Infants were included with their par- 
ents in the covenant of Grace, and always 
received the seal of that covenant, and 
therefore they cannot be excluded, without 
an express command from God. 

The force of the argument depends upon 
a number of facts which need to be distinct- 
ly stated. 

(1.) The covenant which God made with 
Abraham is the Gospel covenant, under 
which we now live. 

It is admitted that the covenant, as exist- 
ing between God and Abraham embraced 
a number of incidental matters, which were 
peculiar to Abraham's natural seed, the 
Jews, but these have all been revoked, 
changed or expired by limitation. But that 
covenant at the same time, included the 
promise of the gift of Christ for the redemp- 
tion of the world, and all the blessings of 
the Gospel. It clearly included the Gospel 
itself, the Gospel church and all its blessings. 
This point is so plain that it appears al- 
most unnecessary to prove it. 

Gen. xvii. 7 : " And I will establish my 
covenant between me and thee, and thy seed 
after thee, in their generations, for an ever- 
lasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, 
and to thy seed after thee." 

Gen. xxii. 16-18 : " By myself have I 
sworn, saith the Lord ; for because thou 
hast done this thing, and hast not withheld 
thy son, thine only son ; That in blessing I 
will bless thee, and in multiplying I will 
multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, 
and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore ,• 



552 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



[book IY. 



and thy seed shall possess the gate of his 
enemies : And in thy seed shall the nations 
of the earth be blessed ; because thou hast 
obeyed my voice." 

Here we have a statement of God';3 cove- 
nant with Abraham, and it was " an ever- 
lasting covenant," and included a blessing 
for " all the nations of the earth." That 
must have been the Gospel covenant. If 
there could be any doubt, the New Testa- 
ment would remove it. 

Gal. iii. 6-9 : " Even as Abraham be- 
lieved God, and it was accounted to him for 
righteousness. Know ye therefore, that 
they which are of faith, the same are the 
children of Abraham. And the Scripture, 
foreseeing that God would justify the heath- 
en through faith, preached before the Gos- 
pel unto Abraham, saying. In thee shall all 
nations be blessed. So then they which be 
of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." 

This proves that the covenant with Abra- 
ham comprehended a spiritual family, in- 
cluding all the faithful, so that Gospel be- 
lievers are included in the promise as Abra- 
ham's promised children. It is asserted that 
the declaration, " in thee shall all nations be 
blessed," was '*the Gospel, preached before 
unto Abraham." This leaves no ground to 
doubt. 

This is made still more plain, if possible, 
verses, 12-14 : "And the law is not of 
faith : but. The man that doeth them shall 
live in them. Christ hath redeemed us 
from the curse of the law, being made a 
curse for us : for it is written. Cursed is 
every one that hangeth on a tree : That the 
blessing of Abraham might come on the 
Gentiles through Jesus Christ ; that we 
might receive the promise of the Spirit 
through faith." 

Here the blessing of the Gospel enjoyed 
by the Gentiles is declared to be the blessing 
of Abraham, or the blessing promised to 
Abraham. 

Lest the covenant made with Abraham 
should get confounded with the Mosaic sys- 
tem, so as to lead men to give up the Abra 
hamic covenant, or hold on to the law as a 



means of justification, Paul draws another 
line of distinction in verses 15-19 : '-Brethren, 
I speak after the manner of men ; though it 
be but a man's covenant ; yet if it be con- 
firmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth there- 
to. Now to Abraham and his seed were 
the promises made. He saith not. And to 
seeds, as of many ; but as of one, And to 
thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, 
That the covenant, that was confirmed be- 
fore of God in Christ, the law, which was 
four hundred and thirty years after, cannot 
disannul, that it should make the promise of 
none effect. For if the inheritance be of the 
law, it is no more of promise ; but God gave 
it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore 
then serveth the law ? It was added be- 
cause of transgressions, till the seed should 
come to whom the promise was made ; and 
it was ordained by angels in the hand of a 
mediator." 

From all this it is certain that the Gos- 
pel is but a continuation of the covenant 
made with Abraham, that the Gospel 
church with its blessings is a fulfillment of 
that covenant, and that it is not a new thing, 
but a continuation of the Abrahamic fami- 
ly, with such alterations as were required to 
suit it to a wider circle by the incorpora- 
tion of the Gentiles. 

This view is still further confirmed by 
Paul to the Bomans. Under the figure of 
an olive tree; he shows that the Gospel 
church is the old Abrahamic tree with the 
Gentiles graflfed on. 

Eom. xi. 17-21 : And if some of the 
branches be broken off, and thou, being a 
wild olive-tree, wert graSed in among thc-m, 
and Vi'ith them partakest of tlie root and 
fatness of the olive-tree ; Boast not against 
the branches. But if thou boast, thou 
bearest not the root, but the root thee. 

"Thou wilt say then, The branches were 
broken off, that I might be graflfed in. 
Well ; bepause of unbelief they were brok- 
en off ; and thou standest by faith. Be not 
high-minded, but fear : For if God spared 
not the natural branches, take heed lest he 
also spare not thee." 



CHAP. III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



553 



(2.) Children received tlie seal of the 
Abrahamic covenant, whicli was circum- 
cision. This will not be denied, yet the 
proof may be added in brief. 

Gen. xvii. 10 : "This is my covenant, 
which ye shall keep, between me and you, 
and thy seed after thee ; Every man-child 
among you shall be circumcised." 

Kom. iv. 11, 12 : "And he received the 
sign of circumcision ; a seal of the righte- 
ousness of the faith which he had, yet being 
uncircumcised ; that he might be the father 
of all them that believe, though they be not 
circumcised ; that righteousness might be 
imputed unto them also : 

" And the father of circumcision to 
them who are not of the circumcision only, 
but who also walk in the steps of that faith 
of our father Abraham, which he had, being 
■yet uncircumcised." 

These points are now settled, that cir- 
cumcision was the seal of the Abrahamic 
covenant, and that it was placed upon chil- 
dren. 

(3.) In the institution of the Gospel 
church, there was a change of the seal from 
circumcision to baptism, without any change 
in the covenant. 

It has been proved that baptism is now 
the seal of the covenant, in an argument on 
the nature of baptism, to which the reader 
is referred. 

There is no necessity for a long argument 
to prove the substitution of baptism for cir 
cumcision, the facts are clear 9,nd that is all 
that is important ; namely, circumcision 
was the seal of the covenant ; baptism is 
now the seal of the covenant. In addition 
to the argument by which baptism has been 
proved to be the seal of the covenant, it 
need only be remarked, that baptism has 
the same significance now which circumci- 
sion had. 

Circumcision was the seal of the cove- 
nant, and baptism is now the seal of the 
covenant. 

Circumcision was the initiatory rite by 
which persons were admitted into covenant 
relation with God^ and into fellowship with 



his people, and baptism is now that same 
initiatory right. This was proved while 
treating of the nature of baptism. 

Circumcision was a sign of an internal 
work of grace in the heart, and baptism is 
a sign of the same thing. 

Deut. XXX. 6 : "And the Lord thy God 
will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of 
thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all 
thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou 
mayest live." 

Eom. ii. 28, 29 : "For he is not a Jew, 
which is one outwardly ; neither is that cir- 
cumcision which is outward in the flesh : 
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly ; 
and circumcision is that of the heart, in the 
spirit, and not in the letter ; whose praise 
is not of men, but of God." 

That baptism is such a sign has been 
proved, but the following text, covers the 
whole ground. 

Col. ii. 10-13 : " And ye are complete 
in him, which is the head of all principality 
and power ; In whom also ye are circum- 
cised with the circumcision made without 
hands, in putting off the body of the sins of 
the flesh by the circumcision of Christ ; 
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also 
ye are risen with him through the faith of 
the operation of God, who hath raised him 
from the dead. And you, being dead in 
your sins and the uncircumcision of your 
flesh, hath he quickened together with him, 
having forgiven you all trespasses." 

Here circumcision and baptism are joined 
as both representing the same gracious heart 
work. 

Circumcision was a work of diflerence 
between the people of God and the uncove- 
uanted world, and baptism is now that same 
mark of distinction. From the above 
premises it follows of necessity that infants 
are to be baptized, or are to have the seal 
of the covenant placed upon them. 

Take the facts as they now stand upon 
the record, and they may be thus summed 
up. 

The Gospel church is no more, and no 
other than the perfecting of the Abrahamic 



554 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



[book IV. 



covenant. This is so clear from what has 
been said that it cannot be doubted. But 
Paul says, 

Rom. XV. 8 : "Now I say that Jesus 
Christ was a minister of the circumcision 
for the truth of God, to confirm the promi- 
ses made unto the fathers ; And that the 
Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy ; 
as it is written, For this cause I will con- 
fess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing 
unto thy name." 

The truth of God then as involved in the 
covenant sealed with Abraham by circum- 
cision, is confirmed in Christ, and we are 
enjoying the perfected state of that cove- 
nant in the privileges and blessings of the 
Gospel church. 

This covenant did, and of course must 
still include the children of believing parents, 
and as they received the former seal, they 
must receive the present seal, which is bap- 
tism. The change of the seal does not and 
cannot change the subjects of the seal. In 
view of these facts nothing but an express 
command could preclude infants from the 
rite of baptism. But no such command is 
found, no such intimation is given. Every 
allusion to children found upon the entire 
record is such as to favor it. When little 
children were brought to Christ, and his 
disciples would have prevented it, he rebuk- 
ed them, and took the little ones up in his 
arms and blessed them. This was not bap- 
tism, but they had always been regarded as 
members of the Jewish church, and it fur- 
nished an occasion for him to declare that 
they should continue to be members of the 
church under his mediatorial reign, for he 
said, "suffer the little children to come unto 
me and forbid them not, for of such is the 
kingdom of heaven." 

Some say that there is no command to 
baptize infants. Without making a formal 
reply to this objection, at this point, it is 
in place to say, that no command is called 
for to authorize it. Nothing but a com- 
mand forbidding it could prevent it, under 
the circumstance of the case. 

2. The commission of the apostles, con- 



strued in the light of the facts, upon the re- 
cord, must include infants as subjects of 
baptism. The commission has been given, 
but let it be spread upon the page at the 
head of this argument. 

Matt, xxviii. 18, 19 : "And Jesus came 
and spake unto them, saying all power is 
given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go 
ye, therefore and teach all nations, baptiz- 
ing them in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 

All are agreed that the literal sense of 
this is, "go and make disciples of all na- 
tions." 

The terms of the commission includes 
children, as they are included in the term 
nations. A na+ion includes the children of 
the nation. They were therefore to make 
disciples of the children. 

To this the objection is raised, that they 
were required to teach them also, and that 
infants are not subjects of instruction, and 
therefore they cannot be the subjects of 
baptism. The premises are admitted, but 
the conclusion is denied. They were to 
teach all that were capable of being taught, 
and baptize all that received the instruction, 
and the instruction and baptism of parents, 
brought in their children with them. This 
the covenant required, as has been proved. 
Less than what is here required on the sub- 
ject of teaching, could not be required, if it 
had been understood that infants were to be 
baptized. Teaching must go before bap- 
tism, because children would not be baptiz- 
ed, until after their parents were baptized, 
and the parents could not be baptized until 
they were taught. This proves that the 
command to teach, would be required in the 
commission, admitting that they understood 
that they were to baptize the children of 
such parents as embraced the Gospel ; and » 
what must have been in the commission, if 
children were to be baptized, cannot prove 
that they are not to be baptized. The ob- 
jection, therefore, grounded upon the com- 
mand to teach must fall. Infants are then 
necessarily included in the absence of no 
command to exclude them. The teaching 



CHAP. III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



555 



clause in fhe commission, required no more 
than had always been required by the very 
terms of the covenant. The Jews were al- 
ways required to teach their children, but 
they sealed them with the seal of the cove- 
nant before they were capable of being 
taught. So were they required to teach 
the heathen when they became proselytes, 
and also to teach their children, but the 
children were circumcised with their parents, 
before they could be taught. There being 
no force then in the command to teach, 
against the baptism of children, the apostles 
would, as a matter of course, baptize the 
children of such families as embraced the 
Gospel, and this it is clear they did, as will 
hereafter appear. 

3. The fact that baptism existed among 
the Jews, as an initiatory right by which 
proselytes were admitted, is a conclusive ar- 
gument in favor of infant baptism, consid- 
ered in view of what appears upon the face 
of the record. 

The fact that baptism was practiced 
among the Jews before the days of John, 
may be denied as a last resort to escape the 
force of a conclusive argument, but the proof 
is too clear to be resisted. 

There were diverse baptisms practiced 
among Uie Jews in our Saviour's time, for 
they are referred to in the New Testament. 
That baptism had been practiced for many 
centuries when Christ appeared, is main- 
tained by the best of writers on antiquity. 
Baptism, says Mr. Watson, " was no new 
ordinance when our Lord instituted it, 
though he gave to it a particular designa- 
tion. It was in his practice to adapt, in 
several instances, what he found already es- 
tablished, to the uses of his religion. A 
parable, for instance, was the Jewish mode 
of teaching. Who taught by parables 
equal to Jesus Christ ? And what is the 
most distinguished and appropriate rite of 
his religion, but a service grafted on a Pass- 
over custom among the Jews of his day ? 
It was not ordained by Moses, that a part 
of the bread they had used in the Passover 
should be the last thing they ate after that 



supper ; yet this our Lord took as he found 
it, and converted it into a memorial of his 
body. The ' cup of blessing' has no author- 
ity whatever from the original institution ; 
yet this our Lord found in use, and adopted 
as a memorial of his blood ; — taken togeth- 
er, these elements form one commemoration 
of his death. Probability, arising to ra- 
tional certainty, therefore, would lead us to 
infer, that whatever rite Jesus appointed as 
the ordinance of admission into the commu- 
nity of his followers, he would also adopt 
from some service already existing — from 
some token familiar among the people of his 
nation." 

The simple allusions to John's baptism 
prove that though he was regarded as an 
extraordinary man, his baptism was not 
considered as new or strange. 

Matt. iii. 1, 5, 6 : "In those days came 
John the Baptist, preaching in the wilder- 
ness of Judea, Then went out to him Jeru- 
salem, and all Judea, and all the region round 
about Jordan, And were baptized of him in 
Jordan, confessing their sins." 

" John did baptize in the wilderness, and 
preach the baptism of repentance." Mark 
i. 4. 

" And he came into all the country about 
Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance 
for the remission of sins." Luke iii. 3. 

John is noted as an extraordinary preach- 
er, but baptism is not even referred to as a 
new thing, but is named as a thing under- 
stood. But what appears more conclusive, 
is the inquiry made by the committee sent 
to him by the Jews. After learning from 
him that he was not the Christ, nor Elias, 
nor one of the old prophets, they demanded 
of him why he baptized. 

John i. 25 : " And they asked him, and 
said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if 
thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither 
that prophet?" 

The questioning was not in regard to the 
nature and objects of baptism, as though it 
were a new thing, but simply in regard to 
his authority. " Why baptizest thou then ?" 
not what doest thou, or what is this new 



556 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



[book iy. 



rite, this baptism ? The thing he was doing 
appears to have been understood, but his 
authority was called in question. The view 
here given, is argued at some length by the 
learned Dr. Mosheim, in his Commentary, 
vol. 1, p. 89. 

To the above the following is added : 

" Maimonides, a Jew and the great inter- 
preter of the Jewish law, says : ' Israel was 
admitted into covenant by three things, viz : 
by circumcision, baptism and sacrifice. Bap- 
tism was in the wilderness before the giving 
of the law.' 

" Again, he says, ' Abundance of prose- 
lytes were made in the daj^s of David and 
Solomon before private men ; and the great 
Sanhedrim was full of care about this bu- 
siness ; for they would not cast them out 
of the church, because they were baptized. 

'And again, ' Whenever any heathen will 
take the yoke of the law upon him, circum- 
cision, baptism and a voluntary oblation, are 
required. * * -^^ Tliat was a common axiom, 
no man is a proselyte until he be circum- 
cised and baptized.' 

" Calmet, in his Dictionary (Art. Prose- 
lytes.) says, ' The Jews require three things 
to a complete proselyte ; baptism, circum- 
cision and sacrifice ; but for women only 
baptism and sacrifice.' 

" Dr. Wall says of proselytes to the Jew- 
ish religion, ' They were all baptized, males 
and females, adults and infants. This was 
their constant practice, from the time of Mo- 
ses to that of our Saviour, and from that 
period to the present day.' 
. " But the testimonies are too numerous to 
be quoted or even referred to in this note. 
See Kurtz on Baptizm, and other works, in 
which this historical fact appears to be sat- 
isfactorily proved. 

" Professor Stuart thinks the probabilities 
against the practice of proselyte baptism 
in the time of our Saviour. He admits, 
however, that ' the impression has become 
widely extended in the Christian church, 
that such was the fact,' and that a majority 
of the older writers have adopted the opin- 
ion of Selden, Lightfoot, Dantz, Buxtorf, 



Schoothgen, Wetstein and others, that the 
baptism of proselytes was common when 
John the Baptist made his appearance as a 
public teacher." — [Bib. Repos. Yol. 3, pp. 
342, 355. 

It is then settled that all proselytes from 
the Gentiles, were admitted by baptism, 
males, females, and children, the children 
coming in with their parents. With this 
state of things before them, the Apostles 
were sent out to make disciples of all na- 
tions, baptizing them all. Here it is insist- 
ed again, that nothing but a positive com- 
mand, not to baptize children, could pre- 
vent. The first Gentile parents that em- 
braced the Gospel, would be baptized with 
their household in accordance with the com- 
mon usage. It cannot be supposed that the 
custom of baptizing infants with their pa- 
rents being already established, would be 
discontinued without a command. And 
how very reasonable is all this ? There was 
a severe and bloody rite by which all male 
persons were sealed, both Jews and prose- 
lytes, but which was apjjli cable only to 
males. But there was another rite, bap- 
tism, which had grown up among them, 
Avhich was adapted to both sex, and all 
ages. This had been practiced upon chil- 
dren. The Saviour adopted this latter rite 
as the seal of the covenant, to answer to eve- 
ry religious significance which the former 
had, and sent his ministers to disciple and 
baptize all nations. Of course they would 
apply it as it had been applied. 

4. The opening of the Gospel mission to 
the world, by Peter, on the day of Pente- 
cost, was in perfect accordance with this 
entire array of facts which have been estab- 
lished in all of the preceding arguments. 

To the first inquiry after the way of Gos- 
pel salvation, he gave the following reply : 
" Then Peter said anto them. Repent, and 
be baptized every one of you in the name 
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, 
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to 
your children, and to all that are afar off, 
even as many as the Lord oui* God shall call." 



CHAP. III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



557 



This coming from the month of a Jew 
coTilcl refer to nothing but the promise made 
to Abraham, and it could mean nothing less 
than that the application of that covenant, 
under the Gospel, included children with 
their parents. In support of this view the 
following is introduced from the able pen 
of Dr. Edwards. 

" (1.) The resemblance between this pro- 
mise, and that in Gen. xvii. 7, ' To be a 
God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee.' 
The resemblance between these two lies in 
two things : 1. Each stands connected with 
an ordinance, by which persons were to be 
admitted into Church fellowship ; the one 
by circumcision , the other by baptism. 2 
Both agree in phraseology ; the one is, ' to 
thee and thy seed ;' the other is, ' to you 
and your children.' Now every one knows 
that the word seed means children ; and that 
children means seed ; and that they are pre- 
cisely the same. From these two strongly 
resembling features, viz. their connection 
with a similar ordinance, and the sameness 
of the phraseology, I infer, that the subjects 
expressed in each are the very same. And 
as it is certain that parents and infants 
were intended by the one ; it must be equally 
certain that both are intended by the other. 

" (2.) The sense in which the speaker 
must have understood the sentence in ques- 
tion : ' The promise is to you, and to your 
children.' — In order to know this, we must 
consider who the speaker was, and from 
what source he received his religious know- 
ledge. The Apostle was a Jew. He knew 
that he himself had been admitted in in- 
fancy, and that it was the ordinary practice 
of the Church to admit infants to member- 
ship. And he likewise knew, that in this 
they acted on the authority of that place 
where God promises to Abraham, ' to be a 
God unto him, and unto his seed.' Now 
if the Apostle knew all this, in what sense 
could he understand the term children, as 
distinguished from their parents ? I have 
said that children, and seed, mean the same 
thing. And as the Apostle well knew that 
the term seed intended infants, though not 



mere infants only ; and that infants were 
circumcised and received into the Church as 
being the seed, what else could he understand 
by the term children, when mentioned with 
their parents ? Those who will have the 
Apostle to mean, by the term children, 
' adult posterity' only, have this infelicity 
attending them, that they understand the 
term differently from all other men ; and 
they attribute to the Apostle a sense of the 
word, which to him must have been most 
forced and infamiliar. 

" (3.) In what sense his hearers must have 
understood him, when he said, ' The pro- 
mise is to you, and to your children.' 

'•The context informs us, that many of 
St. Peter's hearers, as he himself was, were 
Jews. They had been accustomed for ma- 
ny hundred years to receive infants by cir- 
cumcision into the Church ; and this they 
did, as before observed, because God had 
promised to be a God to Abraham and to 
his seed. They had understood this promise 
to mean parents and their infant offspring, 
and this idea was become familiar by the 
practice of many centuries. What then 
must have been their views, when one of 
their own community says to them, 'The 
promise is to you and to your children?' If 
their practice of receiving infants was found- 
ed on a promise exactly similar, as it was, 
how could they possibly understand him, 
but as meaning the same thing, since he 
himself used the same mode of speech ? This 
must have been the case, unless we admit 
this absurdity, that they understood him ia 
a sense to which they had never been ac- 
customed. 

'•How idle a thing it is, in a Baptist, to 
come with a lexicon in his hand, to inform 
us that children, means posterity ! Certain- 
ly it does, and so includes the youngest in- 
fants. 

"But the Baptists will have it that chil- 
dren, in this place, means only adult poster- 
ity. And if so, the Jews to whom he spoke, 
unless they understood St. Peter in a way 
in which it was morally impossible they 
should, would infallibly have understood him 



558 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



[COOX. IT. 



wrong. Certainly, all men, wten acting 
freely, will understand words in that way 
which is most familiar to them ; and noth- 
ing could be more so to the Jews, than to 
understand such a speech as Peter's to mean 
adults and infants. 

"We should more certainly come at the 
truth, if, instead of idly criticising, we could 
fancy ourselves, Jews, and in the habit of 
circumcising infants, and receiving them 
into the Church ; and then could we imag- 
ine one of our own nation and religion to 
address us in the very language of Peter in 
this text, 'The promise is to you and to 
your children ;' let us ask ourselves whether 
we could ever suppose him to mean adult 
posterity only !" 

5. The doctrine of all that has preceded, 
is seen practically developed in the aposto- 
lic baptisms of whole families. This point 
is very well summed up by C. Taylor Edi- 
tor of Calmet's Dictionary of the Bible. 

"The assembly baptized at Cornelius's, 
was a kind of Epitome — representatives of 
the future Gentile church ; and therefore 
contained individuals of every description ; 
young and old — rich and poor — masters 
and servants — high and low — foreigners, na- 
tives of countries near, and distant countries. 
Julian the Apostate, who acknowledge! 
only two eminent converts to Christianity, 
named Cornelius the Centurion as one of 
them. 

"Now is it probable, that Crispus should 
have a numerous family, that Cornelius 
should have a veky numerous family, and 
that the jailor should have a numerous fam- 
ily, but no young children in one of them ? 
although the word expressly signifies young 
children ! The families are spoken of as 
being baptized ; no exceptions are marked : 

"This leads to the history of the Philippian 
jailor who rejoiced believing in God, with 
all his numerous family ; Acts xvi. 34. 
He could not have been an old man. His 
first intention after the earthquake — ' he 
drew his sword, and would have killed him- 
self — is not the character of age, which is 
much more deliberate in its determinations. 



The action is that of a fervid mind. In 
like manner, 'he called for lights, and 
SPRANG IN.' The original well expresses 
the strenuous action of a man in the vigor 
of life ; yet this man had a numerous fam- 
ily, which according to nature must have 
contained young children. Cornelius was 
a soldier too, and taking human life as gen- 
erally modified by professions, had young 
children in his very numerous family. 

" The family of Crispus is said to believe, 
but it is not marked as baptized. Their 
baptism will readily be granted ; for to 
leave this believing family unbaptized would 
cut up ' believers baptism' by the very 
roots. The same reasons imply that among 
the ' many Corinthians' baptized, others 
besides Crispus had families. 

Stephanas, who was a deputy from the 
Church of Corinth to Paul, had been bap- 
tized and was a member of that Church. 
Neither of these particulars is recorded : 
but if Stephanas was not of their body, 
how came they to depute him, for the pur- 
pose of obtaining answers to questions in 
which their body was concerned ? and if his 
family were not attached to the Church at 
Corinth, what relation could it have to the 
state of parties in that Church ? or vvhy 
recollect it in conjunction with Gains and 
Crispus ? Stephanas their father described 
as the first fruits of Achaia ; are we obliged 
to take this term in the sense of ' first con- 
vert ■?' This worthy man might have re- 
sided at a short distance from Corinth ; and 
yet be a member of the Corinthian Church. 

The Church of Corinth then presents 
two particulars which have not heretofore 
occurred in the history of baptism ; — that 
Crispus the head of his family was baptized 
by Paul, separately from his family, which 
was not baptized by Paul ; and that the 
family of Stephanas was baptized by Paul, . 
separately from its head or father who was 
not baptized by Paul : directly contrary to 
what we have remarked of Crispus. 

" But if we admit that the family of Cris- 
pus was baptized, because we find it regis- 
tered as believing, then we must admit the 



CHAP. III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



6m 



same of all other families which we find 
marked as Christians, though they be not 
expressly described as baptized. That of 
Onesiphorus, 2 Tim. i. 16, 18 ; and iv. 19 ; 
which the Apostle distinguishes by most 
hearty good will for their father's sake, not 
for their OAvn, and to which he sends a par- 
ticular salutation. Also that of Aristobu- 
lus. and that of Narcissus, Eomans xvi. 10, 
11 : which are described as being ' in Christ.' 
We have this evidence on this subject — four 
Christian families recorded as baptized — 
that of Cornelius, of Lydia, of the Jailor, 
and of Stephanas. Two Christian families 
not noticed as baptized — that of Crispus, 
and of Onesiphorus. Two Christian fami- 
lies nentioned neither as families nor bap- 
tized — that of Aristobulus. and of Narcis- 
sus. Eight Christian families, and there- 
fore baptized ! although as there was no 
such thing previously as a Christian family, 
there could be no children of converts to 
receive the ordinance ! 

"Have we eight instances of the adminis- 
tration of the Lord's Supper ? Not half 
the number. Have we eight cases of the 
change of the Christian Sabbath from the 
Jewish ? Not perhaps one-fourth of the 
number. Yet those services are vindicated 
by the practice of the Apostles as recorded 
in the New Testament. How then can we 
deny their practice on the subject of Infant 
Baptism, when it is established by a series 
of more numerous instances tnan can possi- 
bly be found in support of any doctrine, 
principle, or practice derived from the ex- 
ample of the Apostles ? Is there any other 
case beside that of Baptism, on which we 
would take families at hazard and deny the 
existence of young children in them ? Take 
eight families at a venture in the street or 
eight pews containing families in a place of 
worship, they will afford more than one young 
child. Take eight families on a fair average : 
suppose half to consist of four children, and 
half of eight children : the average is six : 
calculate the chances, that in forty-eight chil- 
dren, not one should be an infant ; it is hun- 
dreds of thousands to one. But there is no 



occasion that absolute infancy should be the 
object : suppose children of two or three 
years old ; the chances would be millions to 
one, that none such were found among forty- 
eight children, composing six families. Or 
supposing Baptism were completely out of 
sight — ' How many young children would 
be found, on the average, in eight families, 
each containing six children?' — What pro- 
portion do these eight families, identified 
and named in the New Testament, bear to 
that of Christians also identified and named ? 
The number of names of persons converted 
after the resurrection of Christ, in the Acts 
of the Apostles, is twenty-eight. Four bap- 
tized families give the proportion of one in 
seven. The number of names of similar 
converts in the whole of the New Testa- 
ment is fifty-five. How ma,ny converts may 
be fairly inferred from the History of the 
Acts of the Apostles ; ten thousand ? this 
gives one thousand baptized families. How 
many from the whole of the New Testa- 
ment, one hundred thousand ? This gives 
ten thousand baptized families." 

The writer in his experience has never had 
occasion to baptize but one " house." As 
that was a case of some interest it shall 
have its record here. 

In the early part of my ministry, before 
my mind was as well informed and as ripe 
in experience as now, I was called to visit 
a man sick of consumption. He was an 
intelligent man, about middle age, and had 
six children. His wife and the mother of 
his children, had heen baptized, but neither 
himself or any of his children had ever re- 
ceived baptism. He told me he had sent 
for me to baptise himself and all his child- 
ren, and inquired if I would do it. I re- 
plied, that would depend upon the state of 
facts which I had yet to learn. He then 
stated that he had neglected his duty to his 
God, and to his family, that he expected to 
die in a few weeks or a few months, and 
wished to do what he could for himself and 
family before he died, and nothing would 
satisfy his mind, but to be baptized, and see 
all his children baptized, and repeated his 



660 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



[book IV. 



request that I should do it then and there. 
The oldest child was a daughter fourteen 
years old, and very intelligent. I then 
commenced a conversation with her, and 
learned the following facts. She had never 
experienced religion, believed in religion and 
had clear views for a person of her age. She 
believed in baptism, as a Gospel ordinance, 
was willing to be baptized then, and especi- 
ally because her father wished to see her bap- 
tized before he died. She was willing to 
pledge herself to serve God from that hour, 
but said she was not a Christian and never 
had been converted. The other children 
ranged downward to an infant. 

After conversing with the other children, 
old enough to understand, I baptized the 
whole family, beginning with the father. I 
never visited the family again, and soon 
left that section of the country never tore- 
turn. The father soon after died in peace 
The oldest daughter experienced religion 
soon after and united with the church, mar 
ried, and lived about twenty years, and died 
and went to heaven. Of the rest of the 
family I have no knowledge since I conse 
crated the household to God. I hesitated 
at the time, as I was young in the ministry, 
but now that my head is gray, there is no 
official act of my life upon which I look 
back with greater satisfaction. 

6. The fact that no record exists of the 
introduction of infant baptism, is a very 
conclusive proof that it was practiced from 
the beginning. It can hardly be believed 
that such an innovation could be made upon 
apostolic usage without producing a discus- 
sion and leaving something more distinct up- 
on the pages of antiquity than anything that 
can be found. Early historians have traced 
the history of the church and dotted its 
changes, and marked the places where cor- 
ruptions were introduced, item by item, but 
no one has marked the time nor the place 
where infant baptism was introduced, or the 
person by whom it was done. 

Tertullian was the first person who wrote 
against infant baptism. He wrote about 
A. D., 200. From this we learn two things. 



(1.) It was practiced then, or he would 
not have written against it. This was more 
than a century before Constantine was con- 
verted, and hence, before the introduction 
of corruption into the church through its 
connection with the state. 

(2.) We learn from Tertullian's writing 
against infant baptism, that it was not in- 
troduced in his times. This would have 
been his strongest argument, could he have 
availed himself of it. Could he have said, 
this is a new thing, the apostles never bap- 
tized infants, it would have weighed more 
than all of his abstract reasoning. He 
charges no such thing, and does not inti- 
mate that it was an innovation. 

He was replied to by Origen, who affirm- 
ed in his reply, that infant baptism came 
from the apostles. Origen's family extended 
far back towards the apostles. His father 
was a Christian martyr, and his grandfa- 
ther and great grandfather were Christians, 
and it is hardly possible that he should not 
have had the traditions of the apostles in 
his family. This gives great weight to his 
testimony. But the point is that there is 
no account of its introduction, and the 
writing of Tertullian against it proves this 
point, while that of Origen proves the same 
point, by referring its commencement to the 
agency of the apostles. 

1. What few fragments of history can be 
gathered from the ealrliest times are all in 
favor of infant baptism. As there were no 
early controversies about infant baptism, 
so it is to be expected that little would be 
found in regard to it among the early wri- 
ters, yet there is enough to prove its early 
antiquity. As the substance of what may 
be said on this point has been well arrang- 
ed by Mr. Watson, the authorities are 
given as quoted by him. 

He says, " Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, 
in the second century, and Origen in the 
beginning of the third, expressly mentioned 
infant baptism as the practice of their 
times, and by the latter, this is assigned to 
apostolical injunctions. Fidus, an African 
bishop, applied to Cyprian, bishop of Car 



CHAP. III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



661 



thage, to know, not whether infants were 
to be baptised, but whether their baptism 
might take place before the eighth day 
after their birth, that being the day on 
which circumcision was performed by the 
law of Moses. This question was consid- 
in an African Synod, held A. D. 254, at 
which sixty-six bishops 'were present, and 
it was unanimonsly decreed, ' that it was 
not necessary to defer baptism to that day ; 
and that the grace of God, or baptism, 
should be given to all, and especially to in- 
fants.' This decision was communicated 
in a letter from Cyprian to Fidus. We 
trace the practice also downwards. In the 
fourth century, Ambrose says, that 'in- 
fants who are baptised, are reformed from 
wickedness to the primitive state of their 
nature ;' and at the end of that century, 
the famous controversy took place between 
Augustine and Pelagius conceining origi- 
nal sin, in which the uniform practice of 
baptising infants from the days of the 
Apostles was admitted by both parties, 
although they assigned different reasons for 
it. So little indeed were Tertullian's 
surdities regarded, that he appears to have 
been quite forgotten by this time ; for Au- 
gustine says he never heard of any Chris- 
tian, catholic or sectary, who taught any 
other doctrine than that infants are to be 
baptized. Infant baptism is not mentioned 
in the canons of any council ; nor is it in 
sisted upon as an object of faith in any 
creed ; and thence we infer that it was a 
point not controverted at any period of the 
ancient Church, and we know that it was 
the practice in all established churches." 

For authorities in regard to the above 
statements, see Cyprian's Epistle. Lord 
King, part II. chap. 3, and Dr. Wall. Oth- 
er fragments to the same import might be 
gathered up, but they would prove no more 
than the above. It is clear then that the 
baptism of young children was practiced in 
the earliest times, and that the first writers 
who mention it, regard it as an apostolic 
usage, and that no other account is given 
(if it, and that no early opponent ever de- 
36 



nied , or charged that it was an innovation. 
This places the matter in as clear a light 
as any like subject can be expected to be 
placed. 

But while the above facts speak so dis- 
tinctly, what is the history of the opposite 
theory ? 

Dr. Wall, who made the most critical 
research into the history of baptism, con- 
cludes with the following brief summary : 
"For the first four hundred years after 
Christ, there appears only one man, Tertul- 
lian, who advises the delay of infant bap- 
tism in some cases, and one Gregory, who 
did, perhaps, practice such delay in the case 
of his own children ; but no society of men 
so thinking or so practising ; or any one 
man saying it was unlawful to baptize in- 
fants. So in the next seven hundred years 
there is not so much as one man to be 
found who either spoke for, or practised 
such delay, but all the contrary." 

Dr. Wall informs us further, that " A 
sect arose among the Waldenses, A. D., 
1130, who declared against the baptism 
of infants on account of their being inca- 
pable of salvation. But the main body of 
that people rejected their opinion, and such 
as held it quickly dwindled away and dis- 
appeared ; there being no more persons 
holding that tenet till the rising of the Ger- 
man Anabaptists A. D. 1522." 

The history of the Baptists in this coun- 
try has been written by one of their own 
ministers, the Kev. Mr. Benedict. Ac- 
cording to his account, the Baptists com- 
menced their organic existence in the fol- 
lowing manner. Ten persons associated 
together, and appointed Mr. Ezekiel HoUi- 
man to Baptize Koger Williams, who, in 
turn, baptized Mr. Holliman and the other 
ten. This occurred A. D. 1639. See 
Benedict's History, Yol. I. p. 475. 

Objections Answered. 

Before closing this section, it is proper 
to devote very brief attention to the prin 
cipal objections that are urged against in- 
fant baptism. 



562 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



[book IV. 



1. It is objected that there is no Scrip- 
tural warrant for infant baptism. 

To this it is replied, the objection is not 
admitted. It is insisted that a Scriptm^al 
warrant has been made out in the preceding 
arguments. Whether or not there is a 
Scriptural warrant for infant baptism, is 
the main question at issue, and to object 
that there is no such warrant, is to beg the 
whole question. It is thus seen that the 
objection cannot be admitted in this form. 

2. It is objected that there is no express 
command in the Scriptures to baptize in- 
fants. In this form the objection is ad- 
mitted, as a fact, but the conclusion is de- 
nied on the following grounds. 

(1.) N"o express command was necessary, 
as infants had always been admitted, Jew- 
ish children by circumcision, and Gentile 
children with their parents, by circumcis- 
ion and baptism. It required a command 
to exclude them, rather than one to admit 
them. This has been proved in the direct 
argument, and the argument need not be 
repeated. 

(2 .) The absence of an express command 
Is not sufficient to exclude infants from 
baptism only upon the assumption that 
nothing of like kind is to be done, without 
an express command. This cannot be 
maintained. There is no express command 
for admitting females to the Lord's Supper. 
It is clear that no females were present at 
its institution, and there is no command to 
admit them. So far then as the simple 
want of an express command is concerned, 
female communion must be abandoned or 
the objection to infant baptism must be 
abandoned. There is no express command 
for observing the first day of the week as 
a Sabbath, and yet it is almost a universal 
custom. There are a very few Baptists, 
known as " Seventh Day Baptists," who 
are consistent enough with the ground they 
are compelled to take to oppose infant bap- 
tism, to repudiate the Christian Sabbath 
and keep the Jewish Sabbath. The nature of 
the evidence in both cases is the same. 

3. It has been objected that infants can- 



not believe. It is not insisted that they 
can believe. The reply rests upon other 
grounds. 

(1.) Infants could not believe when they 
received circumcision, and yet that very 
circumcision was a seal of the righteous- 
ness which was by faith. And faith was 
required of all who were old enough to be- 
lieve, in order to receive circumcision, yet 
children who could not believe were in- 
cluded with their believing parents, and 
circumcised without being able to believe. 

(2.) Faith is more clearly required in 
order to salvation, than it is to baptism. 
" He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved." This, some contend, excludes all 
but believers. In a limited sense it does, 
but only so far as to exclude all unbeliev- 
ing parents with their children, but it in- 
cludes all believing parents, and the children 
ol believing parents are included with them 
by the very terms of the covenant. This 
has been proved. If it were not so, it 
would exclude infants from salvation, for it 
is added, " he that believeth not shall be 
damned." This shows that these words of 
the commision do not take cognizance of 
the case of infants, or it would exclude 
them from salvation, and of course, we are 
left to fall back upon the terms of the cov- 
enant to learn what relation they sustain to 
the ordinance of baptism, which has been 
proved to be the initiatory rite of the cov- 
enant of grace. It does not say he that is 
not baptized shall be damned, but only " he 
that believeth not," so that while infants 
are included with their believing parents to 
receive the seal of the covenant by baptism, 
the children of unbelieving parents are not 
excluded from salvation by being excluded 
from baptism, as it is not the unbaptized, 
but he that believeth not that is damned, 
which is not true of infants. It cannot be 
said that infants believe not, any more than 
it can be said that they believe. 

4. It has been objected that baptizing 
infants, by which they are committed to 
the obligations of the covenant, is doing 
them a wrong, by taking away their privi- 



CU/V, III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



563 



lege of choosing their own religion. To 
this objection it is replied, 

(1.) The same objection could have been 
urged with equal force against circumcision. 
The Jew not only committed his children 
to the covenant, but the Gentile, when he 
embraced the Abrahamic faith, also com- 
mitted his infant offspring to the same re- 
ligion. Was that wrong ? If not, it can 
be no more wrong now to commit them by 
baptism, whereby the parent pledges to 
bring them up in the faith of the Gospel. 

(2.) Children never had the right of 
choosing any but the true religion. What 
that true religion is, the parent under God, 
is the judge, and is bound to commit his 
children to, and bring them up to believe 
what he believes to be the true religion, to 
the extent of his ability so to do. In so 
doing, he takes away no right from the 
child. When the child becomes old enough 
it in turn becomes its right to judge what 
is the true religion, and it must assume the 
responsibilities of the religion to which the 
parent committed it, or repudiate them 
and this is the right of every human being 
being held accountable to God. So the 
duty of the parent is performed, and 
right is taken from the child. 

(3.) Parents not only have the right of 
choosing the religion for their children, but 
it is their most solemn duty so to do, and 
God always has and does now, hold pa- 
rents responsible for the religion of their 
children while they are under their control, 
so far as belief and external conformity are 
concerned. 

5. It has been objected that it can do 
infants no good to baptize them. In reply 
to this it may be remarked, 

(1.) The same objection might have been 
urged against circumcision. Indeed, it may 
be urged against what is called believers' 
baptism. The thing in itself can do no 
good, to sprinkle a little water upon a man 
or to put him under the water. If a man 
should fall into the water and be immersed 
by accident, he would not feel himself par 
ticularly benefitted, but when he is bap- 



tized, he is or may be benefited. Wherein 
then is the difference? It arises cut of the 
fact that God has commanded us to be 
baptized, and out of our conceptions of the 
relation which baptism sustains to the 
Christian system. All the good after all, 
arises from the fact that God has appointed 
it. If then God has appointed it for infants, 
it is not for man to say it can do no good. 

(2.) If it be the seal of the covenant, as 
has been proved, it is presumption to say 
that when it is placed upon children, by 
their parents, in faith, such children are 
not brought into a more hopeful relation to 
the Christian system and the influences 
under it, by which they must be saved. 
Do parents pray for their infant children, 
before they are capable of moral action ? 
It is presumed that pious parents do. But 
what good does it do ? They are not ca- 
pable of any conditional salvation, by faith, 
or any other condition on their part. But 
God can hear the parent's prayer of faith 
without the faith of the child. This is the 
only reply that can be made, and if this be 
a reason for praying for our infant children, 
placing the seal of the covenant upon them, 
may be, in the mind of God, as good a rea- 
son for doing on their behalf as our prayers, 
and no man can say that baptizing them 
does not do as much good as praying for 
them. 

On the subject of the benefits of baptism, 
the following is quoted from Mr. Watson. 

" The benefits of this sacrament require 
to be briefly exhibited. Baptism intro- 
duces the adult believer into the covenant 
of grace, and the Church of Christ ; and is 
the seal, the pledge to him, on the part of 
God, of the fulfillment of all its provisions, 
in time and in eternity ; while, on his part, 
he takes :ipon himself the obligations Of 
steadfast faith in obedience. 

" To the infant child, it is a visible recep- 
tion into the same covenant and church — 
a pledge of acceptance through Christ — 
the bestowment of a title to all the grace of 
the covenant as circumstances may require 
and as the mind of the child may be sapa- 



564 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



[book IV. 



ble, or made capable, of receiving it ; and 
as it may be sought in future life by prayer, 
when the period of reason and moral choice 
shall arrive. It conveys also the present 
* blessing' of Christ, of which we are as- 
sured by his taking children in his arras 
and blessing them ; which blessing cannot 
be merely nominal, but must be substantial 
and efficacious. It secures, too, the gift of 
the Holy Spirit in those secret spiritual 
influences, by which the actual regeneration 
of those children who die in infancy is 
effected ; and which are a seed of life in 
those who are spared, to prepare them for 
instruction in the word of God, as they are 
taught it by parental care, to incline their 
will and affections to good, and to begin 
and maintain in them the war against in- 
ward and outward evil, so that they may 
be divinely assisted, as reason strengthens, 
to make their calling and election sure. In 
a word, it is both as to infants and to adults 
the sign and pledge of that inward grace, 
which, although modified in its operations 
by the difference of their circumstances, has 
respect to, and flows from, a covenant re- 
lation to each of the three persons in whose 
one name they are baptized — acceptance by 
the father — union with Christ as the head 
of his mystical body, the Church — and the 
* communion of the Holy Ghost.' To these 
advantages must be added the respect 
which God bears to the believing act of 
the parents, and to their solemn prayers on 
the occasion, in both which the child is in- 
terested ; as well as in that solemn engage- 
ment of the parents which the rite necessa- 
rily implies, to bring up their child in the 
nurture and admonition of the Lord. 

*' To the parents it is a benefit also. It 
assures them that God will not only be 
their God ; but ' the God of their seed after 
them ;' it thus gives them, as the Israelites 
of old, the right to covenant with God for 
their 'little ones,' and it is a consoling 
pledge that their dying infant offspring 
shall be saved ; since he who says, * Suffer 
little children to come unto me,' has added 
' for of such is the kingdom of heaven.' 



They are reminded by it, dso, of the neces- 
sity of acquainting themselves with God's 
covenant, that they may diligently teach it 
to their children ; and that, as they have 
covenanted with God for their children, 
they are bound thereby to enforce the cov- 
enant conditions upon them as they come 
to years — by example, as well as by edu- 
cation ; by prayer, as well as by professior 
oi the name of Christ." 



SECTION III. 

Tlie Mode of Baptism. 

There are but two modes, or manners of 
administering baptism, which need be dis- 
cussed. That is to say, immersion as op- 
posed to all other modes. Immersion is 
the only mode which is claimed as exclu- 
sive of all others. If there is no baptism 
without immersion, then all other forms of 
administration are excluded. On the other 
hand, if immersion is not essential to bap- 
tism, then baptism only requires the appli- 
cation of water to a proper subject, by a 
proper administrator, in the name of the Fa- 
ther, Son and Holy Ghost, and it may be 
performed in any of the usual modes. 

The point then to be proved, is not that 
immersion is not baptism, but that it is 
not the only mode in which baptism may 
be administered. It is then only necessary 
to examine the reasons for believing that 
immersion is the only mode of baptism, 
and if they can be proved unsound, the con- 
troversy will be at an end, for the only 
dispute is in regard to this one point. "What 
then are the reasons ? 

I. It is affirmed that the word baptism 
means immersion in water, and nothing 
else, and that the word baptize means to 
immerse in water, and nothing else. If it 
be admitted that these words mean any 
other application of water, or form of using 
water, their use to denote the ordinance of 
baptism cannot prove that it must be by 
immersion. Baptism and baptize both 
come from the same root which is Bapto 



CHAP. III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



565 



This word is defined by all Greek authors 
to mean, " to dip, to plunge, immerse, to 
wash, to sprinkle, to moisten, to steep, im- 
bue, to dye, stain, color." These definitions 
will be found in every dictionary, for there 
is no dispute among authors on the subject. 
This wdrd is used only three times in the 
New Testament, as follows. 

Luke xvi. 24 : " Send Lazarus that he 
may dip the tip of his finger in water and 
cool ray tongue." 

John xiii. 26 : "He it is to whom I 
shall give a sop when I have dipped^ 

Rev. xix. 13 : " And he was clothed 
with a vesture dipped in blood." 

The word Bqptisma, derived from the 
above, from which baptism comes; is de- 
fined thus : " A washing, ablution, purifi- 
cation ; baptism, the Christian doctrine ; 
the depth of affliction or distress." This 
word occurs twenty-two times in the New 
Testament, and is rendered baptism in every 
case. 

The word baptizo, which comes from 
bapto, as above, and out of which our 
word baptize is made, is defined as follows : 
" To dip, immerse, immerge, plunge ; to 
wash, cleanse, purify ; to baptize, to de- 
press, humble, overwhelm." 

Tf the argument was left just here, it 
would appear that there is no proof found 
in the word, that there is no baptism but 
by immersion. But what did the Saviour 
mean when he commanded his ministers to go 
and baptize ? Did he mean that they should 
go dip, plunge, immerse, immerge, wash, 
cleanse, purify, depress, humble, and over- 
whelm ? Did he mean they should do all 
these, or only one of them ? and if only 
one, which ? Or did he leave them to do 
just as they thought best ? 

The word was, doubtless, used without any 
reference to the mode, but with strict refer- 
ence to the end, the design, the significance 
of baptism. This will make perfect sense. 
It was proved that baptism was significant 
of the cleansing of the soul from sin. See 
the argument on this point under the head 
of the nature of baptism. It was, no doubt, 



with strict reference to this significance 
that " Ananias said to Paul, arise and be 
baptized and wash away thy sins." Acts 
xxii. 16. 

In perfect accordance with this idea, is 
one of the significations of the word bap- 
tizo, baptize ; it signifies, " to cleanse, wash 
or purify." When Christ said, go and teach 
all nations, baptizing them, the sense is not 
to immerse them, or sprinkle them, as a par- 
ticular mode, but to purify them as an end 
or with reference to the internal purifica- 
tion of the heart. One signification of the 
word baptize is to purify. But there is 
another word which denotes purification, and 
this is used in one text to denote baptism. 

John iii. 25 : " Then there arose a ques- 
tion between some of John's disciples and 
the Jews, about purifying." 

Here the expression is, zetesis peri katha- 
rismou, better rendered, " a dispute about 
purifying." 

This was when John and Jesus were both 
baptizing, as is seen in verse 22, 23 : " Af- 
ter these things came Jesus and his disciples 
into the land of Judea ; and there he tar 
ried with them, and baptized. And John 
also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, 
because there was much water there ; and 
they came, and were baptized." 

The Jews, probably, undertook to create 
a difficulty with John's disciples because 
Jesus was also making and baptizing more 
disciples than John. This appears to be 
the case from the manner in which John's 
disciples carried up the question to him, as 
recorded in verse 26. Now read the two 
verses together thus : 

"Then there arose a question between 
some of John's disciples and the Jews, about 
purifying. And they came unto John, and 
said unto him. Rabbi, he that was with thee 
beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest wit- 
ness, behold, the same baptized, and all men 
come to him." 

From all this, it is perfectly plain that 
the dispute was about baptism, as practiced 
by John and Jesus Christ. They disputed 
about purifying, and carried up to John 



566 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



[book IY' 



the question about baptism. This proves 
that katharismos, purifying, and bapiizo, 
baptizing, mean the same thing. 

It has now been sufficiently shown that 
there is nothing in the meaning of the words 
used, which renders immersion the only 
mode of baptism. 

2. There is nothing in the manner in which 
the words are used in the New Testament, 
which proves that immersion alone is bap- 
tism, nothing else. 

A few illustrations will show this. If 
Baptism means immersion, and if baptize 
means to immerse, then it will communicate 
the true idea to render them by these words 
wherever they occur. The baptism of the 
Holy Ghost does not admit of the idea of 
immersion. 

Matt. iii. 11 : "I indeed baptize you with 
water unto repentance : but he that cometh 
after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I 
am not worthy to bear : he shall baptize 
you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." 

Should this be rendered, " I immerse you 
with water, but he shall immerse you with 
the Holy Ghost." 

Acts i. 5 : " For John truly baptized 
with water ; but ye shall be baptized with 
the Holy Ghost not many days hence." 

Will it improve the sense of this to read 
it, *' John immersed with water, but ye shall 
be immersed with the Holy Ghost not many 
days hence." 

There are other texts which speak of bap- 
tism by the Holy Ghost. Now this bap- 
tism by the Holy Ghost was not an immer- 
sion, but a pouring out upon, or an effusion. 
Here follow a few texts which speak of the 
same thing. 

John i. 32 : "I saw the Spirit descending 
from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon 
bim." 

Acts ii. 33 : " Jesus having received 
of the Father the promise of the Holy 
Ghost, has shed forth this which ye now see 
and hear." 

Acts ii. 2 : " And suddenly there came a 
sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty 



wind, and it filled all the house where they 
were sitting." 

Acts viii. 16 : " That they might receive 
the Holy Ghost ; for as yet he was fallen 
upon none of them." 

Acts ix. 17 : " Ananias put his hands on 
Paul, that he might be filled with the Holy 
Ghost." 

Acts X. 38 : " God anointed Jesus of 
Nazareth with the Holy Ghost." 

Acts X. 44 : " The Holy Ghost fell on 
all." 

Acts xi. 15 : " The Holy Ghost fell on 
them, even as on us at the beginning." 

Acts X. 45 : " They of the circumcision 
were astonished, because on the Gentiles 
was poured out the Holy Ghost." 

Acts XV. 8 : " Giving them the Holy 
Ghost, even as unto us." 

Titus iii. 6 : " The Holy Ghost ; which 
he shed on us abundantly." 

1 Peter i. 12 : " The Holy Ghost sent 
down from heaven." 

These texts describe or refer to the bap- 
tism of the Spirit, and they do not awaken 
the first idea of immersion. Indeed, they 
cannot be reconciled with the idea of immer- 
sion. 

Matt. XX. 22 : "Are ye able to drink of 
the cup that I shall drink of, and to be bap- 
tized with the baptism that I am baptized 
with ?" 

Shall we read, " are ye able to be im- 
mersed with the immersion that I am im- 
mersed with ?" But what was that immer- 
sion ? It was his suffering and death ; and 
as he died upon the cross, it was a very 
strange immersion. 

Luke xi. 38 : " And when the Pharisee 
saw it, he marveled that he had not first 
washed before dinner." 

Here the original is baptized, and yet it 
will not improve it to read it, immersed be- 
fore dinner. 

1 Cor. X. 2 : "And were all baptized unto 
Moses in the cloud and in the sea." 

They were under the cloud, and passed 
between the divided waters of the sea, and 
we are told they passed through dry shod. 



CHAP. III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



567 



" The children of Israel went into the midst 
of the sea upon dry ground." Exo. siv. 
22. 

The above texts are sufficient to show 
that the word is not used in the New Testa- 
ment to signify immersion and nothing else, 
but there is proof positive to the contrary. 

II. It is affirmed that the descriptions 
given of the places and manner of adminis- 
tering baptism, proves it to have been by 
immersion. 

Several cases are referred to under this 
head. 

1. John baptized in Jordan. To baptize 
in Jordan, does not mean to immerse or 
plunge in the river of Jordan. It might 
mean this, but the words used do not prove 
this to be the sense. 

(I.) It does not necessarily mean any 
more than that he baptized at, near to, or in 
the neighborhood of Jordan. This appears 
upon the very face of the record. Look at 
the several accounts. 

Matt. iii. 5, 6 : " Then went out to him 
Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region 
round about Jordan. And were baptized 
of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." 

Here it is most clearly affirmed, that 
John baptized all the multitude in Jordan. 
Mark, if possible, is still more definite, by 
adding the word river. 

Mark i. 5 : " And there went out unto 
him all the land of Judea, and they of Jeru- 
salem, and were all baptized of him in the 
river of Jordan, cpnfessing their sins." 

Here again it is perfectly clear that the 
people were all baptized in the river Jor- 
dan, if we are to regard the expression, " in 
Jordan," as deffinite. But what do the 
other two Evangelists say about it ? Luke 
is not so definite. 

Luke iii. 3 : "And he came into all the 
country about Jordan, preaching the 
tism of repentance for the remission of 
Bins." 

This supposes that he preached and bap- 
tized in different places, and in Jordan, 
comes to mean no more than in the country 
about Jordan. But what does John say ? 



He indeed locates John's baptism at two 
different points. 

John i. 28 : " These things were done in 
Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was 
baptizing." 

This, beyond doubt, was the place where 
the principal scene of John's preaching 
and baptizing was enacted, and it was be- 
yond Jordan. 

Chap. iii. 23 : " And John also was bap- 
tizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there 
was much water there ; and they came, and 
were baptized." 

Here the place of John's baptism is fixed 
at Enon, which was some miles from the 
river Jordan. How is this to be reconciled 
with the declarations of Matthew and Mark, 
that they were all baptized in Jordan? 
Simply on the ground that the Greek word 
rendered in, signifies not only in, but at, by, 
near to, against, unto, towards. "In the 
river Jordan," would be just as truly trans- 
lated, " at, near or by the river Jordan." 

(2.) If it were admitttd that John bap- 
tized in the channel of Jordan, which is 
probably the fact, it would not prove that 
immersion was the mode. Many people 
have been baptized in rivers without being 
immersed. And in the case of John, there 
was a necessity of resorting to the river or 
to other water in the open country, to ac- 
commodate the multitude, if no immersion 
was practiced or thought of. There was, 
then, a sufficient reason for going to the 
river without supposing that it was to im- 
merse. 

2. It is urged that when John baptized 
Christ, he came up out of the water. 

Mark iii. 16 : " And Jesus, when he was 
baptized, went up straightway out of the 
water : and, lo, the heavens were opened 
unto him, and he saw the Spirit of G-od de- 
like a dove, and lighting upon 
him." 

The most faithful translation that could be 
given to the clause is, " he went up directly 
from the water." The Greek word here 
rendered "out of," is, apo. This word has 
been translated in some twenty different 



568 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



[book IV. 



► 



ways in the New Testament. It is rendered 
from in verse 13. Jesus came from " Gali 
lee.^ 

Chap. vii. 23 : " Depart from me." 

Chap. viii. 1 : " When he was come down 
from the mount." 

Chap. xix. 1 : "He departed from Gali- 
lee." 

Chap. XX. 29 : " As they departed from 
Jericho." 

Mark xvi. 8 : " And fled from the sepul- 
chre." 

In all these texts the same word is used, 
hence it is just as correct to say that he 
went from the water, as out of the wafer. 
But if he really went out of the water, it 
would not prove that he had been under it, 
as many persons have been in the water, and 
come out of the water, without being im- 
mersed, or without going entirely under it. 

3. John baptized in Enon because there 
was much water. John iii. 23. This would 
prove that John immersed, if much water 
could be needed for no other purpose. The 
much water, however, in this case, could 
not have been needed for immersion, for he 
had been baptizing in the river Jordan, and 
there was not more water in Enon than in 
the river Jordan. John had been baptizing 
in Bethabara, which was about fifty miles 
down the river from Enon. Did he leave 
Jordan at or near that noted place on the 
river, and go so far to find water enough to 
immerse. This cannot be pretended. 

But there was another reason for his re- 
moval, amply sufficient to account for his 
change of place. The Jordan is a turbid 
stream. The water of it is unfit for drink 
or culinary purposes, until it has stood sev- 
eral hours in vessels and settled. But the 
waters of Enon were pure rivulets or streams, 
flowing from a single fountain or spring. 
The place has been identified by modern 
travelers, and it is plainly seen to have fur- 
nished far better accomodations than the 
region of the Jordan, for the encampment 
and comfort of the thousands and tens of 
thousands that attended the ministry of 
John. And the geography of the place has 



thrown light upon the original expression, 
here translated much water. It is jpolla 
hudata, which literally signifies, not much 
water, but many waters or streams. And 
the reason is now plain why John resorted 
thither. He was perpetually attended by 
the greatest multitude that ever assembled 
around a human being for instruction. Had 
they no use for these many waters except- 
ing for the ordinance of baptism ? Were 
not these pure and healthful waters a great 
and almost indispensable convenience for 
drinking, and for culinary and other pur- 
poses? And did not their camels, and 
horses, and asses need water ? Just such 
locations are selected by those who have 
experience in camp meetings in our own 
country. Pure and abundant springs, or 
streams of running water, are regarded as 
indispensable for the comfort of the people 
and their beasts of burthen, without the 
slightest reference to baptism in any mode. 
This passage, therefore, proves nothing as 
to the mode of John's baptism. It leaves 
us free to presume, that he baptized in Enon, 
as he did elsewhere, not into water, but with 
water. Doubtless he applied the water to 
the persons, and not the persons to the wa- 
ter. 

4. When Phillip baptized the Eunuch, 
Acts viii. 38, "They both went down into 
the water," and they both "come up out of 
the water." This is perhaps regarded as 
the strongest text in support of immersion. 

The only proof that immersion was the 
mode, is found in the words into, and out of. 
Now these words are just a's correctly 
translated, to, and from. Then it would 
read "went down to the water," and "come 
up from the water." The Greek particle, 
here rendered into, is, Eis and occurs in the 
following texts, in which, for the sake of 
showing the absurdity of supposing it neces- 
sarily means into, it is so rendered. 

John xi. 38 : '-Jesus cometh i7ito the 
grave. It was a cave and a stone lay upon 
it." 

John XX. 4, 5 : "So they ran both together, 
and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and 



CHAP. III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



569 



came first into the sepulchre. And he 
stoopiug down and looking in, saw the linen 
clothes, yet went he not in." This makes 
the writer assert that he went in, and that 
he went not in. 

Acts xxvi. 14 : "And when we were all 
fallen into the earth, I heared a voice speak- 
ing unto me." 

The reader will substitute to, for into and 
the above text will read right. Yet the 
same word, is used where it is said they both 
•went "down into the the water." Eead, "to 
the water" and there will be no proof of 
immersion. The word rendered out of, was 
noticed in connection with Christ's baptism, 
and need not be again considered. 

But if they did both go down into the 
water, it does not prove that either went 
under the water. If Philip could go into 
the water, and come out of the water, with- 
out being immersed, so could the Eunuch ; 
and if the sense of the words prove that one 
was immersed, then they prove that both 
immersed, for what is affirmed of one, is 
affirmed of the other. 

Should it be asked why they went down 
into the water, if it was not to immerse, the 
answer is, because it was easier to go down 
to the water, than it was to bring the water 
up into the carriage. 

But as this was a desert, verse 26, it is 
not at all probable that there was any water 
there, sufficient to immerse. It was prob- 
ably a well or fountain, one of the watering 
plactiS by the way side. 

5. Paul speaks of being buried by bap- 
tism, and that is supposed to mean immer- 
sion, beyond a doubt. 

Rom. vi. 3, 4 : "Know ye not, that so 
many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
Christ were baptized into his death ? There- 
fore we are buried with him by baptism in- 
to death ; that like as Christ was raised up 
from the dead by the glory of the Father, 
even so we also should walk in newness of 
life." 

The proof which this text is supposed to 
furnish in support of immersion, is found in 
the expressi( j, "buried by baptism." It is 



assumed that this is an allusion to immer- 
sion as resembling a burial. It is not how- 
ever certain that the text contains any such 
allusion. It will admit of a fair exposition, 
one that will secure all the ends which 
Paul had in view, without supposing such 
reference. The apostle is not treating of 
the mode of baptism, but of death to sin. 
The following presents all the essential 
points. 

(1.) Christians are baptized into Christ's 
death. Note, it is not his burial into which 
they are baptized, but his death. His death 
was not by immersion, or by burial, but by 
crucifixion ; he was lifted up upon the cross. 

But how are we baptized into his death. 
Not by the form of immersion, for that is 
most unlike his death. 

We are baptized into the merits of his 
death or his atonement. He died for us, and 
we are baptized into a visible interest in that 
death. We believe in it, or we would not 
be baptized on account of his having died 
for us. By baptism, we show our faith to 
others. By baptism we pledge, not to live 
to the world, but to live to him who died 
for us. This is what appears to be meant 
by being baptized into his death. 

(2.) "We are buried with him by bap- 
tism into death." We are not buried with 
him by the form of immersion, for there is 
very little resemblance between immersion 
and his burial. It is not form, but the sig- 
nificance of baptism that furnishes the fig- 
ure. Baptism denotes our death to the 
world and sin, as it is a consecration to God 
and a pledge to lead a new life. The figure 
lies between our death to sin, and his death 
upon the cross, and not between the form of 
our baptism and the form of his burial. 
There is not the slightest allusion to his 
burial in the text. We are not buried by 
baptism into the grave, or into his grave, 
into his burial, as the form of expression 
would have to be, to make the form of im- 
mersion the basis of the figure. But "we 
are buried with him by baptism into death, 
not into the grave. 

(3.) "As Christ was raised from the dead, 



570 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



[book IY 



so we should walk in newness of life." 
Here is another figure, and it lies between 
our regeneration, our moral resurrection to 
a new life of holiness, and Christ's resurrec- 
tion. The substance of the whole is this ; 
Christ's death, and our death to sin are 
offset one against the other ; and Christ': 
resurrection and our life are offset one 
against the other ; and baptism is repre 
sented as the means by which we become 
interested in Christ, in both his death and 
his resurrection, and is significant of both 
the death and the resurrection, and not of 
his burial by the supposed mode of immer- 
sion, for as already said, it is not his burial 
into which we are baptized, but his death 
which was not by immersion but by cruci- 
fixion This entire view better harmonizes 
with the next verses which cannot be recon- 
ciled with the supposed immersion figure. 
The next two verses which are a continua- 
tion of the same theme, reads thus : 

*'For if we have been planted together in 
the likeness of his death, we shall be also in 
the likeness of his resurrection : Knowing 
this, that our old man is crucified with him, 
that the body of sin might be destroyed, 
that henceforth we should not serve sin." 

Being baptized into Christ's death, and 
being planted in the likeness of his death, 
certainly mean the same thing, and there is 
not the slightest analogy between planting 
and immersion. The allusion is not to plant- 
ing seeds by burying them in the earth, but 
to planting trees, or setting out trees, as 
we call it. The original signifies, to set out 
trees, or to cause trees to grow together. 
And now our death which was, a moment 
ago, supposed to be represented by im- 
mersion, has become a crucifixion, and we 
are crucified with Christ, that the body of 
sin might be destroyed. 

The principal proofs in support of im- 
mersion have now been examined, and with 
what success the reader must judge for him- 
self. 

But there is another side to the question, 
which shall now be briefly summed up. 

III. There are strong reasons for believ- 



ing that baptism was not administered by 
immersion. 

1. Baptism by immersion, destr.jys all 
ground of comparison between it oud the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost. This point 
was presented while discussing the meaning 
of the words baptized and baptism, to which 
the reader is referred. The Scriptures con- 
nect water baptism and the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit, as though there were a similar- 
ity, but immersion destroys the resemblance ; 
the Spirit is poured out, shed abroad, and 
is said to fall upon us. 

2. It is not possible that John's baptism 
should have been by immersion. 

This point is met, not because John is 
believed to have administered Christian 
baptism, but because others so understand 
it. John's Baptism differed materially from 
Christian Baptism. 

(1.) The immediate institutor of John's 
baptism was God the Father, John i. 33 ; 
but the immediate institutor of the Chris- 
tian baptism, was Christ, Matt, xxviii. 19. 

(2.) John's baptism was a preparatory 
rite, referring the subjects to Christ, who was 
about to confer on them spiritual blessings. 
Matt. iii. 11. 

(3.) John's baptism was confined to the 
Jews ; but the Christian was common to 
Jews and Genliles. Matt. iii. 5-7 ; xxviii. 19. 

(4.) It does not appear that John had any 
formula of administration ; but the Chris- 
tian baptism has : viz. In the name of the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Gost. 

(5.) The baptism of John was the con- 
cluding scene of the legal dispensation, and 
was, in fact, part of it ; and to be consid- 
ered as one of those " divers washings" 
among the Jews ; for he did not attempt to 
make any alterations in the Jewish religion, 
nor did the persons he baptized cease to be 
members of the Jewish church, on account 
of their baptism ; but Christian baptism is 
the regular entrance into, and is part of, 
the evangelical dispensation. Gal. iii 27, 28. 

(6.) The subjects of John's baptism, 
were re-baptized when they embraced Chris- 
tianity. Acts xix. 1-5. 



CHAP. III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



5T1 



The population of Judea, at that time, 
was probably not less than six million. But 
what proportion were baptized ? Not all, 
but a lar<?e proportion. Nothing else can 
render the united account of the three Evan- 
gelists true. Matthew says, "Jerusalem, and 
all Judea, and all the region round about 
Jordan, were baptized of him." Mark 
Bays, " There went out unto him all the 
land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem and 
were all baptized of him." Suppose John 
baptized one half, say three millions, and can 
one believe that he did it all by immersion ? 
It is impossible. His public ministry con- 
tinued only about nine months, and there is 
not the slightest intimation that he had any 
assistants. Half of his time must have been 
spent in preaching, and to have baptized so 
many in the other half of the time, he must 
have baptized thirty-six every minute, for 
each half day, for a hundred and thirty-one 
days. The thing is too absurd to be believed. 
There can be no doubt that John bap- 
tized by hundreds, sprinkling them by means 
of a brush of hyssop, or something else of 
the kind. 

3. Three thousand were baptized in one 
day, in Jerusalem, at the day of pentecost 
It is not at all probable that these were 
baptized by immersion. 

(1.) There was no convenient place for 
baptizing such a multitude. Jordan was 
between sixteen and eighteen miles distance. 
The brook Kidron was nearly or quite dry 
at this season, for it was in June. There 
were only two public pools ..in Jerusalem. 
The pool of Bethesda, was used daily for 
the cleansing of the sacrifices, and was in 
the hands of the priests and bitter enemies 
of the disciples. Nor can we suppose it 
would have sufficed for the baptism, of so 
many in so short a time, if it had been 
thrown open for the purpose by a pub- 
lic order. The pool Siloam, the only other 
place, was at the foot of Mount Moriah, at 
least three quarters of a mile from where 
the apostles were preaching. And this is 
described as a spring, issuing from a rock 
twenty or thirty feet below the surface of 



the ground, to which Messrs. Fisk and 
King, say they descended by two flight of 
steps. There could have been no place 
there to have baptized three thousand per- 
sons in so short a time. 

(2.) There was not time to baptize so 
many in such new circumstance. It was 
nine o'clock a. m. when Peter began his 
sermon, and the matter was all finished upon 
the spot. They that received the word were 
baptized, and the same day there were ad- 
ded to them about three thousand souls. 

(3.) The baptisms appear to have been 
performed on the spot. There is no men- 
tion made of preparation, of change of 
place, of going to, or of returning from the 
place of baptism. 

4. The baptism of Cornelius and all 
his friends as recorded, Acts x. 47, is 
strongly against immersion. There was a 
large company of them. Peter preached, 
and the Holy Ghost fell upon them. " Then 
Peter said, can any man forbid water that 
these should not be baptized." No man 
would use such language with reference to 
immersion. It implies that the water was 
to be brought. Then he commanded them 
to be baptized, and no mention is made of 
removal from the scene. It is very likely 
that when Peter said, " can any man forbid 
water," some of the company understood it 
as meaning, will some one bring water, and 
went and brought it, and then he commanded 
them to be baptized. 

5. The baptism of the Jailor and his 
whole family, is another case Vhich is 
strong against immersion. This case is re- 
corded Acts xvi. 25-34. 

All the circumstances detailed in this ac- 
count, plainly show that immersion was 
wholly out of the question. Paul and 
Silas were prisoners, whom the jailor had 
been solemnly charged to " keep safely ;" 
and for this purpose, and in faithfulness to 
his charge, he had " thrust them into the 
inner prison, and made their feet fast in the 
stocks." Suddenly, "at midnight," there 
was an earthquake, which shook the foun- 
datiocs of the prison, threw open the doors, 



572 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



[book IV 



and loosed the bands of the prisoners. The 
jailor awoke in the greatest consternation 
and alarm. He was overwhelmed with the 
thought that the occurrence would be his 
ruin. So strong were his feelings of obli- 
gation to keep safely those who had been 
committed to his charge, that when he saw 
the prison doors all open, and supposed the 
prisoners were fled, " he drew out his sword 
and would have killed himself." Paul cried 
out, " do thyself no harm for we are all 
here." 

Now let it be observed that the jailor 
lived within the same building, hence, when 
he is said to bring them out, it was only 
out of the inner prison where he had con- 
fined them ; and when he brought them into 
his own house, it was only into his private 
dwelling within the walls of the same build- 
ing. In these circumstances he was bap- 
tized with all his household the same hour 
of the night. They did not wait for day- 
light to go away to some river or stream 
of water. But what renders it certain that 
they did not go away to baptize, is, they 
were there next morning, and refused to go 
out of the prison, until the magistrates 
came in person. They could not have been 
immersed, unless they had a place in the 
jail, and that is not at all probable. 

There are other cases which might be 
urged, but the above is sufiBcient, and here 
the argument on baptism is left to the 
judgment of the candid reader. 

SECTION IV. 
The Lord's Supper. 

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was 
instituted by our Lord, on a memorable oc- 
casion. It was on the evening on which he 
was betrayed, and after he had eaten the 
passover with his disciples, that he institu- 
ted the sacred Supper, to be a memorial of 
his sufferings, a sign of his presence with 
his Church, and a seal of the new covenant, 
which he was the next day to confirm with 



his blood. An account of it is given by the 
Evangelists ; but the most distinct and com- 
plete, is found in one of the Epistles of 
Paul, to whom it had been communicated 
by our Saviour himself. 

As baptism was substituted for circum- 
cision, so the Lord's Supper was put by 
our Saviour in the place of the Passover ; 
and was instituted immediately after cele- 
brating that ordinance for the last time 
with his disciples. 

The two sacraments Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper, agree in some respects, and 
in others they difier. 

1. They agree, in that they are both per- 
manent institutions of the Gospel, both 
seals of the same covenant, and both have 
Christ for their substance or spiritual part. 

2. They disagree in that baptism is to be 
administered but once with water, — and 
that even to infants ; whereas the Lord's 
supper is to be administered often, in the 
elements of bread and wine, to represent 
and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment 
to the soul, and to confirm our continuance 
and growth in him, and that only to such 
as are of years and ability to examine them- 
selves, and receive it understandingly. 

The Passover in the place of which the 
Lord's Supper has been instituted, was a 
type of Christ. 

On the night when the first-born of Egypt 
were slain, the children of Israel were com- 
manded to take a lamb for every house, to 
kill it, and to sprinkle the blood upon the 

3ts of their doors, so that the destroying 
angel might pass over the houses of all who 
had attended to this injunction. Not only 
were the first-born children thus preserved 
alive, but the effect was the deliverance of 
the whole nation from their bondage in 
Egypt, and their becoming a visible Church 
and people of God by virtue of a special 
covenant. In commemoration of these 
events, the feast of the Passover was made 
annual, and at that time allthe males of Ju- 
dea assembled before the Lord in Jerusa- 
lem ; a lamb was provided for every house ; 
the blood was poured under the altar by 



CHAP. III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



573 



the Priests, and the lamb was eaten by the 
people in their tents or houses. At this 
domestic and religious feast, every master 
of a family took the cup of thanksgiving, 
and gave thanks with his family to the God 
of Israek 

That the passover was a type of Christ 
IS clear. It was eaten with unleavened 
bread, and Paul says, " Purge out the old 
leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye 
are unleavened. For even Christ our pass- 
over is slain for us." 1 Cor. v. 7. 

Christ is then our passover, our sacrifice. 
The paschal lamb pointed forward to Christ, 
and when he had come and was about fin- 
ishing up his work, and making an end of 
all sacrifices, by the one sacrifice of himself, 
he eat the last passover with his disciples, 
and acting as the master of his family, when 
the disciples had finished the usual paschal 
ceremony, he proceeded to a new and dis- 
tinct action : " He took bread," the bread 
then on the table, " and gave thanks, and 
brake it, and gave it to them, saying, This 
is my body which is given for you ; this do 
in remembrance of me. Likewise also the 
cup after supper," the cup with the wine 
which had been used in the paschal supper, 
'• saying. This cup is the New Testament in 
my blood, which is shed for you ;" or, as it 
is expressed by St. Matthew, " and he took 
the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to 
them, saying. Drink ye all of it ; for this 
is my blood of the New Testament, which 
is shed for many for the remission of sins." 

As the passover had pointed forward to 
bis prospective death for the world, so this 
new sacrament was instituted to point back 
to his death, and preserve a perpetual mem- 
ory of the same. 

There are several interesting topics which 
might be discussed in connection with the 
Lord's Supper, the most important of which 
shall receive brief attention. 

1. It is a permanent institution, to be per- 
petuated to the end of time. Two conside- 
rations will settle this point. 

1. The solemnity of the occasion and the 
manner in which our Lord instituted the 



Supper, proves it to have been designed to 
be perpetual. 

Matt. xxvi. 26-30 : " And, as they wero 
eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and 
brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and 
said. Take, eat ; this is my body. And he 
took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it 
to them, saying. Drink ye all of it. For 
this is my blood of the New Testament, 
which is shed for many for the remission of 
silis. But I say unto you, I will not drink 
henceforth of this frait of the vine, until 
that day when I drink^it new with you in 
my Father's kingdom. And when they had 
sung a hymn, they went out into the mount 
of Olives." 

The whole proceeding shows upon its 
face that something was contemplated be- 
yond that once eating of the passover. It 
was more than the passover ; it was some 
thing clearly representing his death. But 
Luke adds these emphatic words as falling 
from the dying institutor's lips, " This do in 
remmebrance of me." Do it when ? Surely 
not then, for he was there with them, but 
do it in coming time. He did not design or 
expect that they should repeat it before he 
suffered, but after his death and resurrec- 
tion. It is unlimited, " this do in remem- 
branceof me." Such a command, with- 
out limitation as to time, if it binds at all, 
must bind perpetually. Nor can it be sup- 
posed that it was limited to the number then 
present, for he said, " this is my blood which 
is shed for many," it was not confined to 
them. 

2. The testimony of Paul confirms it as 
a permanent institution. 

1 Cor. xi. 23-26 : " For I have received 
of the Lord that which also I delivered un- 
to you. That the Lord Jesus, the same night 
in which he was betrayed, took bread : And 
when he had given thanks, he brake it, and 
said. Take, eat ; this is my body, which is 
broken for you : this do in remembrance of 
me. After the same manner also he took 
the cup, when he had supped, saying. This 
cup is the New Testament in my blood : 
this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in rement 



574 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



[bock IY. 



jR 



brance of me. For as often as ye eat this 
bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the 
Lord's death till he come." 

Observe, here, 

(1.) It was given to Paul by a special 
revelation. He was not present when it 
was instituted, and hence it was not limited 
to them. 

(2.) He regarded it as belonging to the 
Corinthian church, and they were a Gentile 
church, and had not been interested in the 
passover. This proves that it must be for 
all Christians. 

(3.) Paul clearly regarded it as designed 
to be frequently celebrated until the Sa- 
viour's second coming. " As often as ye 
eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do 
show the Lord's death until he come again." 

The question is then settled that it is ap- 
pointed to be celebrated until the end of 
time. 

11. The nature of the Lord's supper. 
There are two leading views held in regard 
to the Lord's supper, namely : that of the 
church of Rome, and the true prostestant 
view. It is true there have been several 
intermediate views held by persons, who 
saw in part, on the subject, during the pro- 
gress of the reformation, but they belong in 
fact to one side or the other ; they are mod- 
ifications of one system or the other, for 
^ there is no half-way place, no link that can 
join them together. 

1. The Romish doctrine is that of tran- 
substantiation by which is meant that the 
bread and wine in the Supper, are changed 
into the real body and blood of Christ. 

In the primitive church, the original in- 
stitution was retained in its simplicity. In 
process of time, however, highly figurative 
language began to be used, which, if lite 
rally understood, imported a corporal pres- 
ence of Christ. It was in the ninth centu- 
ry, that a real change of the substance of 
the elements, in the Lord's Supper, was first 
openly and explicitly maintained. The au- 
thor of this heresy was Pascacius Radbert, 
abbot of Corbey, in France. Though this 
novel opinion met with powerful opposition 



from many distinguished persons of the age, 
yet it obtained powerful patronage ; was 
gradually diffused among the nations of the 
west ; and was finally established as an ar- 
ticle of faith in the Church of Rome, under 
the name of transubstantiation. It receiv- 
ed its final sanction from the council of 
Trent, by the enactment of two decrees, iu 
which the doctrine of the corporal pres- 
ence of Christ, in the supper, or transub- 
stantiation, is explicitly maintained and con- 
firmed. 

The doctrine is too absurd, it would ap- 
pear, to need a refutation, for the benefit of 
common sense, yet we are compelled to know 
that it has been the doctrine of the Chris- 
tian world, and that now it is held by the 
greatest portion of those who claim the 
Christian name. 

(1.) It is manifestly founded upon a false 
interpretation of Scripture. It is founded 
upon a literal interpretation of the word^ 
of Christ, " This is my body." But it is 
absurd to understand such a text literally. 
It can mean no more than, *' this represents 
my body,, this is the emblem or symbol of 
my body, this is to remind you, or to put 
you in mind of my body, which is broken 
for you." This is the common sense con- 
struction. 

(2.) The doctrine of transubstantiation 
requires a violation of their own, as well as 
of the universal rules of interpreting the 
Scriptures. The rule that requires a lite- 
ral interpretation of this language, must re- 
quire a literal interpretation of all similar 
language in the Scriptures. " This is the 
stone which the builders refused," must 
prove Christ to be a real stone. " I am the 
door," must prove him to be wood, or iron, 
or some other kind of a door. " I am the 
true vine," must prove him to be a literal 
vine. 

But Christ said, John vii. 38 : " He that 
believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, 
out of his belly shall flow rivers of living 
water." 

The interpretation necessary to secure 
the doctrine of transubstantiation, when ap- 




CHAP. III.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



575 



plied to the text last quoted, will prove that 
every true catholic, has a literal river of liv- 
ing water flowing out of his bowels. 

Bat there is another text which has been 
supposed to teach the doctrine in question 
as follows : 

John vi. 51-53 : " I am the living bread 
which came down from heaven. If any 
man eat of this bread, he shall live forever : 
and the bread that I shall give is my fl.esh 
which I will give for the life of the world. 
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, 
saying, How can this man give us his flesh, 
to eat ? Then Jesus said unto them, Yeri- 
ly, verily, I say unto you. Except ye eat the 
flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, 
ye have no life in you." 

The only question is, what is meant by 
eating and drinking, in this text ? It can 
iliean no more than believing in him. This 
is certain from the fact that those who be- 
lieve are said to have life, which none have 
but such as eat and drink. 

John iii. 36 : " He that believeth on the 
Son hath everlasting life : and he that be- 
lieveth not the Son shall not see life ; but 
the wrath of God abideth on him." 

None have life but such as eat the flesh 
and drink the blood of the Son of man ; 
but all who believe on him have life ; and 
therefore eating his flesh and drinking his 
blood, can mean no more than believing on 
him. 

Moreover, if there was no eating and 
drinking in the sense of the text, but in the 
sacrament, it would exclude all catho- 
lics from eternal life, who have not re- 
ceived the sacrament. This would send a 
large portion of their young people to hell, 
and it would be beyond their power to get 
them out, unless they send some catholic 
priest there to administer the sacrament. 
That they may find their way there, is not 
hard to believe, but that they will carry 
bread and wine along, is doubtful. 

(3.) The doctrine of transubstantiation 
contradicts the testimony of our senses. 
After the change of the elements, as affirm- 
ed, they are precisely to our senses what 



they were before. The bread, for instance, 
does not look like flesh, feel like flesh, smell 
like flesh, nor taste like flesh, and if the doc- 
trine, is true every sense is false. 

(4.) It is at war with reason and univer- 
sal experience. 

(5.) It has given rise to a host of other 
superstitions and errors, such as the sacri- 
fice of the mass, and even idolatry. It is 
wonderful to see how hard it was for the re- 
formers to shake off this superstition. Luth- 
er, the great and fearless reformer, rejected 
the doctrine of transubstantiation, yet his 
mind was not clear on the subject. He 
adopted an unscriptural view, which he 
called consubstantiation. While he denied 
that the bread and wine were changed into 
the body and blood of Christ, he held that 
the real body and blood are received by the 
communicants along with the symbols. 
This view is clearly absurd. 

2. The true protestant doctrine may be 
stated thus : 

The body and blood of Christ are not 
corporally present in the ordinance, nor are 
they received in any corporal sense ; nor 
are the bread and wine in any sense expia- 
tory, nor do they feed the soul. The body 
and blood of Christ are received only in a 
spiritual manner, the benefits of his atone- 
ment communicated to the soul by the Holy 
Spirit, being the only manner in which we 
can be said to receive the body and blood 
of Christ in the Supper. Also faith is the 
medium through which the benefits of the 
atonement are received ; nor are the bread 
and wine a channel through which this grace 
is received, only so far as they are received 
by faith as Christ's appointed symbols of 
his body and blood, and so far as they, be- 
ing received in this light, are a help to our 
faith. 

This exposition of the light in which the 
Supper is to be regarded, falls below what 
appears to be implied in much of the lan- 
guage employed on the subject, in the old 
standards and formulas, but if they mean 
anything more than has been expressed 
above, they lean too far towards the Rom- 



576 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



[book IV. 



isli doctrine. If Christ, when he said, " this 
is my body," meant anything more than 
" this represents my body," he must have 
meant that it was his real body, for there 
can be no medium sense. If he meant no 
more than " this represents my body," then 
the exposition which has been given above, 
is all that is implied in the language, and in 
all the rational ends to be secured by the 
institution itself. 

But what are these ends, or what is the 
design of the Lord's Supper ? 

(1.) It was instituted as a seal of the 
covenant of grace. This is clear from the 
language employed by the Savioar at the 
institution. " This cup is the New Testa- 
ment in my blood." That is, it is a sign 
and seal of the New Testament, or covenant 
of grace. 

(2.) It was instituted as a memorial of 
Christ's death. This do in remembrance 
of me." 

As such it reminds us of the infinite love 
of God for a lost world, who gave his Son 
to die for us. It reminds us of the love of 
Christ, who gave himself for us. It re- 
minds us of the terrible anguish, agony and 
death by which Christ redeemed us, when 
he was made a sacrifice, sin-ofiering for us 
It reminds us of our only remedy for sin 
the death of Christ. 

(3.) It was instituted as a means of grace, 
a source of Spiritual nurture and strength 
Not as a sacrifice offered at the time, not 
as the real body and blood of Christ, but as 
his appointed symbol to bring his death, 
with all its atoning merit, sensibly to our 
midns, as the object of our faith. That 
such a material symbol taken with right 
views, may help our faith, is easy to believe. 
Christ who knows all men better than they 
know themselves, knew that we needed such 
a help and means of grace. And, it being 
of his own appointment, when it is received 
with right views, he can, and will communi- 
cate grace to the heart, which degree of 
gTace and comfort, may not be looked for 
only in the use of this very means which 
Christ himself has ordained. This is the 



only rational view of the Lord's Supper, as 
a means of grace. 

• (4.) It was instituted as a standing means 
and witness of Christian fellowship. 

1 Cor. X. 16, 17 : " The cup of blessing 
which we bless, is it not the communion of 
the blood of Christ ? the bread which we 
break, is it not the communion of the body 
of Christ ? For we, being many, are one 
bread, and one body ; for we are all par- 
takers of that one bread." 

This text indicates that the bread and 
wine represent the body and the blood of 
Christ, and that our partaking of the same 
denotes, first, our union with Christ ; and 
secondly, our union with each other. It is 
a public declaration of our Christian love, 
and fellowship. 

(5.) It was instituted as a standing 
proof to the world of the Divinity of ths 
Christian religion, of the world's alienatioif 
from God, and of its redemption by Christ. 
A-S a simple monument of the event of our 
Lord's death, it is an unanswerable argu- 
ment in support of the truth of the Chris- 
tian religion, a reproof of the world's sin, 
and a token that Christ will come again to 
judge the quick and the dead. It is much 
more than a simple monument of the death 
of Christ, but if it were no more, it would 
be an argument in support of the genuine- 
ness of Christianity, which infidelity could 
never overthrow. It says as the voice of 
Christ, " I lived, I died, I am coming again." 

III. The proper subjects to partake of 
the Lord's Supper. 

None but Christians have a right to the 
Lord's Supper. By Christians, here, is 
meant such as make an honest profession 
of faith in Christ and obey the Gospel. 
The rule by which persons are to judge of 
their own fitness, is their own consciousness 
of an honest desire and purpose to be a 
Christian and to live a Christian life. Such 
OS are thus conscious should come, and no 
others. 

The rule by which we must judge of the 
fitness of others, is the evidence which per- 
sons present of being such persons as des- 



CHAP, in.] 



THE SACRAMENTS. 



677 



cribed above, such as ought to come. We 
must take a rational and charitable view of 
the evidence, and where it fails to produce 
conviction of an honest belief in Christ, and 
an intention to live a Christian life, we are 
bound to reject them from the Lord's Sup- 
per, and refuse them Christian fellowship. 
This follows from the simple fact that the 
Supper is a means appointed by Christ of 
making a public declaration of our union, 
Christian love and fellowship. From this 
view the following consequences follow : 

1. All who reject the doctrine of the sac- 
rificial death of Christ, and all who may be- 
lieve in it as a theory, yet do not obey the 
Gospel, and have not an honest intention to 
live according to the requirements of the 
Gospel, ought not to come to the Lord's 
table. If they come, they eat and drink 
unworthily, and eat and drink damnation 
to themselves, "not discerning the Lord's 
body." 1 Cor. xi. 29. 

By this is not meant that the sin of un- 
worthy eating and drinking is unpardonable. 
The word damnation means no more than 
condemnation, and they bring condemna- 
tion as all do when they commit sin of any 
kind. 

2. It follows that it is the duty of every 
church, so to administer discipline, as to ex- 
clude from their communion all such as do 
not give the required evidence that they 
are Christians, as described above. To 



neglect this, is to become partakers of other 
men's sins. 

3. It is the right of every true Christian 
to enjoy a place at the Lord's table, and 
hence every church is bound to admit all 
such as give evidence that they are Christi- 
ans, and walk according to the Gospel. 
The church that rejects such as give the 
required evidence of their honest Christian 
character, offend against God and his peo- 
ple. 

4. It is the duty of all honest Christians 
to celebrate the Lord's Supper. The duty 
is certain from their right. Duty and 
right go together, those who have a right 
to come to the Lord's table, have no right 
to stay away. 

It is true that there is no law by which 
it is determined how often we are bound to 
celebrate the Lord's Supper, yet it should 
be done frequently. It is probable that 
the first Christians celebrated it on every 
first day, but there is no law, and no such 
example as makes it binding. The lan- 
guage however, "as oft as ye eat this bread," 
appears to imply that it is to be frequently 
repeated. Every church should have regu- 
lar and set seasons for communion, and no 
member should allow him or herself to be 
absent on such occasions, unless in case of 
necessity. Habitual neglect of the Lord's 
Supper should be made a matter of disci- 
pline, the same as any other neglect of duty. 



INDEX. 



Adoption 200 

Angels, lioly 222 

'* Fallen, 228,239 

Annihilation 326 

Apostacy of true believers 165 

Atonement, necessity of 124 

Extent of .... , 145 

" Objections to answered. . .141 

Baptism, nature of 544 

Mode of ■ 564 

" Subjects of 549 

Bishops, are only presbyters and pas- 
tors 527 

Children, duties of 393 

Christ, divinity of 80 

" Humanity of 93 

Church of Christ, visible and invisible, 480 
" Visible organization 

of 482 

" Government of 492 

Death the effect of sin 108 

" is eternal in its nature 124 

Deacons, office 523 

Decrees 148, 154 

Depravity 115 

Devils, existence of 228 

Divorce 386 

Dueling, sinfulness of 443 

Duties, those we owe to God 344 

" those we owe to our fellow be- 
ings 319 

Elders..... 525 

Election 160 

Endless punishment 311, 326 



Faith ....110,111 

Fall of man 110 

" objection to, answered 113 

Fear of God 348 

Forenowledge of God 148 

" Does not influence human 

actions 160 

God, existence of 166 

" attributes of .168 

Government, civil 398 

Moral 334 

Heathen, case of considered 221 

Heaven is a place 306 

" Joys of 309 

" Where located 309 

Holy Spirit, divinity of the 97 

" Witness of the 201 

Husbands and wives 384, 388 

Infants, salvation of 219 

" Are subjects of baptism 554 

Intermediate state 278 

Justification 189 

Judgment, the general 300 

Law, moral , 339 

Life, all men have a right to 431 

Liberty, a universal right 436 

Lord's day 366 

Lord's Supper , 572 

Love to God 344 

Love to Man 379 

Man, pristine state of 106 

" Fall of 110 

" Is a subject of moral government.335 



680 



INDEX. 



Marriage S84 

Masters, duties of 395 

Moral government 332,334 

Murder 432 

Neighbor, who is my 380 

Ordination 517 

Parents, duties of. 391 

Prayer 352,355 

" Kindsof •'•• 359 

Predestination 148 

Presbyters equal to bishops 528 

Property, right of =434 

Prophecy, as proof of inspiration 47 

Punishment after death 281 

" Will be endless 311 

" Not annihilation 326 

Eedemption 124 

Bgeneration 194 

Eesurrection of the body 290 

Keverence for God 348 

Sabbath, the Christian 366 

" Instituted at creation 367 



Perpetual 370 

" Changed to the first day 372 

Sacraments 543 

Salvation is conditional 319 

Sanctification 207 

Scriptures, they were inspired 6 

" Adaptation of the 57 

Credibility of 25 

" Genuineness of 13,19 

" Moral influence of 61 

Servants, not Slaves 395 

Duties of 396 

Slavery, sinfulness of 436 

" Not sanctioned by the Scrip- 
tures 447,460 

Soul, immortality of the human 242 

State, the intermediate 278 

Suicide 434 

Trinity, doctrine of the 103 

War ...433 

Witness of the Spirit 201 

Worhip, public 363 



©91 -*4 






--^'^ o 



■.^^ ^'^^ 






\^. 



..^ 



% 




^ V 






O ■' * J. 



vV , >> C 



<'^ '^^ 










0' ,c" '^ «, -^ 



-^^^^ .V>B 






-^A V^ 






0^ 



N ^ 



<-- 



oci 












IjU!^,'' ''^^ v** '■* 






.^^o' 






% ' -^^ <-^ 



Oo. 






0^ 



^. %:7.^^.o^ 



X 




'^> .^^ 






.^' -^^ 



■V c 









.0 o 



o5 -v. 









C^ ^^0^^l!^ 



y^' * ^^ 






X. 






^■^^ '^ ^:^ 



•^oo^ 



^^ '^ v^ 



/v 



>y^^^ -% 



'<^^ * 






'b. 



V 






'* ' -^^^ v* 









,-^'' c- 



;^<^ 



%'* 



•A^' 



A-^^' -^z 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: iVIagnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2005 

PreservationTechnoIogies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



*^ 



.0' , 



%', -^'x 



^iv' 



,0 o 



{^ •^' 



^ % ^ Wm : . '^^^ \. ^^^yiW^ 



■'^ Xrr^ ^ 



-.v ^^_ 



J' 






^ ^^, 






*' ') V, 



^\, %:<^^.^ 



,0c>. 









-:^^ :- 






"■1^ 






'' ^ * ^ s ^ ^'^ 



^ 1^ ^M 



OQ- 




• A^ .V ,,, 






!.\ -^ 











^0 e. 



'\^^'%. ^V^-^^ 



. ^ s '^ .' \ , , , 



^■^'^ ..^:./>^-.''' 



ct- % (--"^^ -i ,^>' 



v^% 






.^ ,0- 






A^' 









>^ %■ 


%%;■ 


<" 


-V 


"v^ 


/? 




'■ ' 


■'^^ V 




,0 o. 


'^^^^^ 












■' « 1 \ 




o 




vi*' 








:5^^. -'^^_ -!.•< ~" 




^^^- ', -<^, .-.^ 




■1 o 



,':* . N o 



^a: 



^^.# 






vO o^ 






'•^\ ^r> c^' J'i^^ 



%Ky-^' \ ' 



.# ^^- 



-^"^-^\.N^ 






I 



